It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This whole thing makes NO SENSE! The US has publicly telegraphed, coordinated, even announced that it would be limited in scope and brief, the Syrians today have already dispersed and hidden planes and other hardware in fortified installations. So what is the US trying to accomplish? Nothing it sounds like! They are going to lob 10 missiles, its not going to inflict much damage at all, so little in fact that Syria wont lash out at Israel (like they would do if they were truly attacked heavily) so this whole thing is just an exercise of futility.

To me it seems that Obama is ONLY doing this because a year ago he drew a red line in the sand and Syria crossed it so he has backed himself into a corner to having to do something or risk losing more credibility than he already has lost. He has probably already relayed to Syria through Russia, exactly when the attack will happen and what will be hit.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Looks like it will indeed be a small strike:

From RT news:

"another official briefed on a potential strike told the Los Angeles Times that the White House may opt for an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked," but one that wouldn’t be severe enough to warrant a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," the Times quoted the source as saying."



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Regardless of the attack which their saying will be surgical its still an attack of Syrian Sovereign soil therefore Russia will immediately jump into action.

What give the US the right to say 'Look little syria it will only be a little slap on the wrist so don't do it again' ?


Again they need evidence to prove whether Syrian Arab Army did use chems it's simple as that.

If they did and then I'm all for the surgical measures to be taken and a diplomatic way to sort this out like sending in the peacekeepers for both sides.
edit on 28-8-2013 by deviant300 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I think you are missing the point. All of that is SO that Russia doesnt jump in. Trust me they wont. Its all been worked out.



Originally posted by deviant300
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Regardless of the attack which their saying will be surgical its still an attack of Syrian Sovereign soil therefore Russia will immediately jump into action.

What give the US the right to say 'Look little syria it will only be a little slap on the wrist so don't do it again' ?


Again they need evidence to prove whether Syrian Arab Army did use chems it's simple as that.

If they did and then I'm all for the surgical measures to be taken and a diplomatic way to sort this out like sending in the peacekeepers for both sides.
edit on 28-8-2013 by deviant300 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2013 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I think the US should launch about 100 cruise missiles into an unpopulated area of Syria, leave a really big hole in the ground and say "Assad, Next time it will be where ever you are" and then leave.

Personally, I think that would be the perfect message.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Haha thats what we all hope but in reality I feel parliament will pass it.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


That's why democracy could never work; have enough idiots to agree with you and we wouldn't last a decade.
edit on 28-8-2013 by Senduko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I think a limited response would be the worst thing Obama could do.

Either go all in and remove Assad now, or don't do anything at all.

A half-hearted approach won't stop the fighting. Rebels will be inclined to use chemical weapons because they know that that will bring U.S. strikes (if they frame Assad), and Assad will be inclined to use chemical weapons because he will no longer fear a half-hearted, telegraphed, weak response.

Either way, more WMDs used on civilians.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Yep, but its already been agreed on that the strike will be brief and very limited. Huge mistake.



Originally posted by elitelogic
I think a limited response would be the worst thing Obama could do.

Either go all in and remove Assad now, or don't do anything at all.

A half-hearted approach won't stop the fighting. Rebels will be inclined to use chemical weapons because they know that that will bring U.S. strikes (if they frame Assad), and Assad will be inclined to use chemical weapons because he will no longer fear a half-hearted, telegraphed, weak response.

Either way, more WMDs used on civilians.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Personally i think the US proclaimed light military respons towards Syria is for a much bigger event, that probably will make some heads spin nexst week.

And it wont be ww3.

The out come of the US light military repons to Syria will initiate a war between either Syria and Israel, or Syria and Iran against Israel. The US will then step back and let them Battle it out. The US wont step in because Russia will play the Counter part so it will look like their hand are tied. It would be a Perfect excuse to not side With Israel physically.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


All the US really has to do with regards to Israel is be ready to supply them with spares and maybe a little help with intel data, both of which they have done before.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by spy66
 


All the US really has to do with regards to Israel is be ready to supply them with spares and maybe a little help with intel data, both of which they have done before.


It would probably be Limited to such. Because Russia would also support Syria and Iran.

I dont think this conflict will escalate into a Direct military conflict between Russia and the US.

It also seams like the US and Russia have a mutual agreement to keep Things even or at a mute point between Assad and the rebels.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I really don't see it happening either. The countries have gone to great lengths to keep from fighting head to head for many years. I don't see that being thrown away now.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
This reminds me of the phrase "The best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray".



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zap, how good is the air protection of the tankers nearest the area being targeted by air assets. The closest refueling location(s).



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deviant300
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Haha thats what we all hope but in reality I feel parliament will pass it.


Probably. I just sent an email to my MP that i spent an hour composing. Probably make no odds, still it makes me at least feel i tried something beyond moaning anonymously on here.

There was a conservative backbencher on the TV opposed to non UN backed action so the opposition isn't on party lines.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by Honor93
 


Not the video you are thinking of I am afraid. This is new footage.

i'm just guessing here, but apparently you missed my opening statement ...

i can't view videos

so no, the video had -0- impact on my commentary.
and, why did you avoid answering my questions ??

since when does the military operate in tennis shoes ??



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


They can bring F-15s from Incirlik down, as well as F-16s from other bases in the region up to them, so it's pretty good. If they really want to stretch some legs, there are some F-22s that have been rotating through the area, but they'd have to bring more tankers to get them to the right location, so that would mean more to protect. If worst comes to worst, they could probably send up some of the RAF Typhoons that are exercising in the area as well.

Something pretty big appears to have been moved within the last two to three weeks out of the New York area, by the unit known to move Patriot batteries, so there may be a few launchers in the region too, that the tankers could hide behind.
edit on 8/28/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
All of that just to lob a few missiles?



Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by roadgravel
 


They can bring F-15s from Incirlik down, as well as F-16s from other bases in the region up to them, so it's pretty good. If they really want to stretch some legs, there are some F-22s that have been rotating through the area, but they'd have to bring more tankers to get them to the right location, so that would mean more to protect. If worst comes to worst, they could probably send up some of the RAF Typhoons that are exercising in the area as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


No, all that to protect your tankers. Tankers are extremely High Value Assets, and you protect the hell out of them. There are currently 18 in the area, so this will be more than "just a few missiles". There will be bombers involved as well. Those tankers, as well as the E-3s, E-8s, and RC-135s need protection.
edit on 8/28/2013 by Zaphod58 because: I don't know why I keep calling the damn E-8 the J-8.





top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join