Media Silent as House Passes Resolution for Syrian No-Fly Zone — Provoking War with Russia

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scouse100

hen what do you think the reason is?

Regime change appears to the end game. A no fly zone would aid the rebels on the ground to advance.

We have civilians being starved in Yemen yet our government doesn't appear to give a toss about them. I can only take from that, that it is not about helping the people.

a reply to: Scouse100

The US is not involved in Yemen.

Assad and his position is up to the syrian people.

The no fly / safe zone is to stop the indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loveguy

Syria is not a neighbor any more than Iran is. The US shares a border with Russia where as Syria does not.

Thanks for mentioning Iran, I guess they are in the same region where logistics are concerned?

Where Russian goes, so goes the US.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually theres about 300 special forces personnel there-(between Syria and Yemen)
officially they pulled out before the conflict but there has been a small group of advisors there as of April

a reply to: loveguy

As for logistics I believe they initially allowed Russia to use bases but I think that ended because Iranian law doesn't allow for foreign forces to be based in their country, although they do allow overflight.

Iran has forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria both.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: TrueAmerican

A way to punish people for voting Trump? IDK, but the whole regime change, invading sovereign countries, etc. will not end well. Let's hope there is some sanity between the senate and white house. The general that was testifying before congress made it clear that it would bring us to war with Russia. Russia has stated before that if we attacked with conventional weapons, because of the advanced nature of our strike capabilities they would use nuclear weapons.

More a way of covering up the Clinton Foundation. Given the way they have worked across the world, they would have to wipe every banking computer across thecworld to cover up that financial trail.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually theres about 300 special forces personnel there-(between Syria and Yemen) officially they pulled out before the conflict but there has been a small group of advisors there as of April

Careful... trying to blur the lines of special forces and advisors with regular troops is a double edged sword.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loveguy

As for logistics I believe they initially allowed Russia to use bases but I think that ended because Iranian law doesn't allow for foreign forces to be based in their country, although they do allow overflight.

Iran has forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria both.

By logistics I was referring to neighbors getting along with each other for the most part...
Iran and Russia must have their own security threat(s) preventing them from being a better neighbor to their neighbor?

Or is Iran somehow going to ire someone else if they lend a hand to their neighbor, I don't know?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually theres about 300 special forces personnel there-(between Syria and Yemen) officially they pulled out before the conflict but there has been a small group of advisors there as of April

Careful... trying to blur the lines of special forces and advisors with regular troops is a double edged sword.

So they are there or they are not?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scouse100

The US is not involved in Yemen.

Assad and his position is up to the syrian people.

The no fly / safe zone is to stop the indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Sorry I was referring to the UK government, supplying arms used on civilians in Yemen but refusing to acknowledge the problem while at the same time promoting a no fly zone in Syria on the premise of protecting civilians.

I disagree on the given reason for the no fly zone.

a reply to: Scouse100

Considering no US no fly is established, let alone the fact Congress has not authorized it, what reasoning are you objecting to?

Do you think its ok to intentionally target civilians / civilian infrastructure? Do you think its ok to use chemical weapons on civilians?


Also just to clarify Clintons position (and I cant stand her). Her no fly zone was for Aleppo only.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scouse100

Considering no US no fly is established, let alone the fact Congress has not authorized it, what reasoning are you objecting to?

Do you think its ok to intentionally target civilians / civilian infrastructure? Do you think its ok to use chemical weapons on civilians?


Also just to clarify Clintons position (and I cant stand her). Her no fly zone was for Aleppo only.

The reasoning they are using to push for it (UK ans US) is disingenuous.

No I do not think it is OK but neither do I believe that it not being OK has anything to do with the push for this. I wonder which other ways we might reduce the bombing of Aleppo (that might not be as beneficial to our interestests) that we are ignoring?

Isurrender73
a reply to: TrueAmerican

So basically the US is admitting that despite its "superior" weaponry they can't defeat Russia in proxy war?

Huh? Where in the world are you getting THAT?

It is not the issue at all. The point is to never, ever, let it get to the point where we are facing off directly against Russian forces (unless they are invading our territory). There are no winners in nuclear war, so your point, and question, are irrelevant. And if there is an all out nuclear war, your life will also be irrelevant.

We are arming rebels that the Russians have labelled terrorist. The Russian Military is destroying US armed mercenaries and Islamic Extremists. This is not Afghanistan, the Russians are winning and in control on all fronts.

Acording to the PNAC this was supposed to be a proxy war to oust Assad. However ISIS which was funded by Clinton and Obama became a nightmare.

The proxy war failed. The only option left to oust Assad is a no fly zone which would allow U.S. backed extremists the ability to maintain a weapons stash. Something they have been unable to do because of Russian intervention.

The only option left to push the globalist agenda is WW3. This is what I was talking about.

Chemical weapons have been used by rebels actually, they used it against Turkish army too.

Okay why no fly zone over israel for the treatment of civilians and stealing land both from Palestine and Syria

This seems to have always been the Democrats near-term plan to salvage what they've done to the US dollar.

All the free stuff like Obama Phones.

All the welfare dollars.

All the Obama spending.

There had to be some way of paying for it. The Dem's plan was to take the entire world into WWIII. It's not like the elite have to fight and die for their cause, is it? Their cause is making themselves rich at our expense.

And now what? A recount in the USA ... just like they're trying to stop the Brexit. And people are still just stupid about it when it's so blatantly apparent to anyone who just looks at it for a minute with a steady gaze.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

It seems that there is just one sponsor of that bill.

Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16]

Not sure if anyone is co-sponsoring this bill because it doesn't say so in the Congress.gov website that refers to that bill.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you think its ok to intentionally target civilians / civilian infrastructure?

The US does that regularly. Syria is none of our business.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: intrptr

our friends at you tube are censoring again bute the story is at the below link

http://

Thanks for that update. The Syrians have renewed the assault to capture Allepo, securing one district that divides the forces trapped there.

No wonder the US wants to declare a no fly zone over the area, their mercenary army is losing, squeezed into ever tighter redoubts. Its only a matter of time. Will the west rescind, or escalate?

Telegraph

originally posted by: loveguy

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually theres about 300 special forces personnel there-(between Syria and Yemen) officially they pulled out before the conflict but there has been a small group of advisors there as of April

Careful... trying to blur the lines of special forces and advisors with regular troops is a double edged sword.

So they are there or they are not?

Lol, that line is "blurry" on purpose. The same distinction, I mean disinformation applies when wanting us to believe there are some mystical 'moderate rebels'.

Ya got your reglar GIs and yer 'special' ones. Ya got your 'extreme' terrs and yer 'moderate' ones.