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.

 

Syrian War: Brief and Limited

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Third, the administration must think the public is totally dialed out to believe this convenient spin.




That's from the assumption the people care...
Look at this graph just to show you have *** the world is.
Damn it I can't link it, you'l have to go to the link below to see the graph. DISTURBING.

I advice everyone to look at this graph.

Thanks to ZH/Google trends.
www.zerohedge.com...
edit on 28-8-2013 by Senduko because: (no reason given)

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




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
We could shoot one bullet into Syria and they would be justified in responding however they are able. They could for instance flood Israel with scuds as a response. We only control one side of the shooting.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 

Perhaps the Apocalyptarians are right. My Israeli friends are scared.
The Israeli government are not about to give the Israel people the opportunity to have a vote taken on whether the US should be urged to attack Syria.
edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Well for those of you capable of remembering your history beyond Bush Jr. the US has often used breif and limited operations. The US is no invading or liberaring Syria they are punishing them and warning them about using chemical weapons again. Anyone hoping for anything more than a few days of strikes is fooling themselves. However I would expect the West to finally start arming and training the rebels to advantage of the strikes.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Well for those of you capable of remembering your history beyond Bush Jr. the US has often used breif and limited operations. The US is no invading or liberaring Syria they are punishing them and warning them about using chemical weapons again. Anyone hoping for anything more than a few days of strikes is fooling themselves. However I would expect the West to finally start arming and training the rebels to advantage of the strikes.


I have no doubt that the U.S. is indeed planning on limited strikes.

What if Iran follows up on its threat that Israel will be the "first victim" if U.S. attacks? In conjunction with Syria's threat to also attack Israel?

What if Israel is attacked by Iran and Syria simultaneously? Far fetched, but possible. Things would escalate and become very unpredictable from that point on.
edit on 28-8-2013 by elitelogic because: typo



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


It's a short hit and git like Desert Fox and similar operations, if Assad bends over and takes his whooping like a good tyrant.

If he resists and fights? Our little venture into international discipline will have started a major war from a situation where direct, flagged forces of another nation hadn't fired shots in anger until we arrived.

I hope nothing happens. This is the area of the world I hope for nothing more .....than nothing happening.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Even if they manage to force Assad down, the next civil war will start in the matter of days between the rebels. Rebels in Syria: few groups with their own sponsors, own goals and opinions about future politics. Those groups hate each other more than they hate Assad and they will be left in Syria with huge amount of chemical weapons? Sure ... 2 days intervention is impossible. Good luck, guys



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Obama gets compared to FDR often enough, maybe he sees himself in the same light? After all FDR got to be in office from 1933 to 1945, maybe Obama figures his flock will demand that he stay in office while this "threat" to our nation is dealt with?

With all else that has gone on in Congress the last 5 years, it's not that inconceivable, it would only take an 'emergency' repeal of the 22nd amendment. If they can pass Obamacare without reading it, who's to say they wouldn't go along with this too?




Actually, Obama has the power to suspend elections and remain in office if he believes there's a chance of terrorists interrupting the election process. You can thank Bush for passing that. It doesn't even take a repeal of the 22nd amendment. We won't know if Obama will use that power (there was lots of speculation Bush would... but he didn't) until it comes time for it to happen. It's not subject to any checks from the Legislative or Judicial branches.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aazadan
Actually, Obama has the power to suspend elections and remain in office if he believes there's a chance of terrorists interrupting the election process. You can thank Bush for passing that. It doesn't even take a repeal of the 22nd amendment. We won't know if Obama will use that power (there was lots of speculation Bush would... but he didn't) until it comes time for it to happen. It's not subject to any checks from the Legislative or Judicial branches.


I'm fairly certain that is a myth. Can you document that?

There used to be a myth spread around that Presidents can suspend elections in time of Declared War, declared by Congress, but that was a myth.

I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment for that which has never happened.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Here's my take on brief and limitedThere are quite a few contingencies in this region and even further reaching that simply can't be planned to a tee. You just can't predict how things will unfold with the implications presented from a Western Attack on Syria. First and foremost, you just don't know how the entire M.E. region will react. It's already a complete mess as is, without stoking the fire even more. You don't know how the Muslim extremists will react, you don't know how the nation states (Syria, Iran, etc) will react, You don't know how their global allies will react. The one thing you can be certain of is the fact that western interests are pushing them up against the wall. How they will react if (and it's still a big if) Syria get's hit is anybody's guess.Second, you'll have a battle damage assessment a few hours after the initial strike. If the objectives (whatever those are deemed to be) have not been met, you could very well see a second round of strikes. I bring this up because of the defense system supposedly provided to Syria by Russia. If that defense system is even moderately successful than a second wave is almost inevitable, possibly stoking the regional fire even more. Third, even if the strikes are successful you have a high likelihood that those same chemical weapons could easily fall into not so desirable hands. I don't think anyone could honestly call the FSA desirable allies. After all, the U.S. are fighting elements associated with the FSA around other parts of the globe. So what is the contingency plan for large stockpiles of chemical agents falling into extremest hands?I see no elements of this situation conducent to a brief and limited operation. Well, besides our technological ability to bomb the $h!t out of somebody. You know what they say. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm fairly certain that is a myth. Can you document that?


NSPD 51 covers it. Basically, the president can declare a "catastrophic emergency" (which itself is undefined), consolidate all government power into their own hands, and postpone elections until the emergency has passed. That's the law atleast... I'm fairly certain our military wouldn't allow that to happen under most circumstances. Still, it's theoretically possible.
edit on 28-8-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 


And what about the impact such as financial on the US citizen. I bet the oil traders and oil companies are rubbing their hands in anticipation of the price of oil and profits.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The Syria issue is just a stepping stone to Iran, Imo the results will be the same.
Italy on Syria - "think about it a thousand times" before launching an attack...
video.foxbusiness.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 
Or what about the fat no bid contracts a few contractors will get to rebuild Syria after it gets smashedWe're getting a little ahead of ourselves, but the writing is on the wall.Been there, done that.



edit on 28-8-2013 by GD21D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GD21D
 

History does tend to repeat itself, so rebuild contracts to the chosen few. Speaking of repeats, this war thing is making the circle quite quickly.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MrSpad
 


It's a short hit and git like Desert Fox and similar operations, if Assad bends over and takes his whooping like a good tyrant.

If he resists and fights? Our little venture into international discipline will have started a major war from a situation where direct, flagged forces of another nation hadn't fired shots in anger until we arrived.

I hope nothing happens. This is the area of the world I hope for nothing more .....than nothing happening.

--
I agree and disagree with this post.
It's going to be a short hit and run and assad will most likely be killed in said conflicts.
BUT, if he survives, resists and fights? well that's will the rebels come into play, we make the mess, they can mop up however they want.
With the exception of a few SPEC OPs teams, no boots on ground will be authorized. A more technological approach I might add.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by elitelogic

Originally posted by MrSpad
Well for those of you capable of remembering your history beyond Bush Jr. the US has often used breif and limited operations. The US is no invading or liberaring Syria they are punishing them and warning them about using chemical weapons again. Anyone hoping for anything more than a few days of strikes is fooling themselves. However I would expect the West to finally start arming and training the rebels to advantage of the strikes.


I have no doubt that the U.S. is indeed planning on limited strikes.

What if Iran follows up on its threat that Israel will be the "first victim" if U.S. attacks? In conjunction with Syria's threat to also attack Israel?

What if Israel is attacked by Iran and Syria simultaneously? Far fetched, but possible. Things would escalate and become very unpredictable from that point on.
edit on 28-8-2013 by elitelogic because: typo


Then Syria and Iran would give the Arab League the opportunity it wants to take directl action and intervine in Syria and the Iranian airforce would cease to exist. Syria can not do much and Iran is not in much better shape and both of them know any real action would mean terrible things for them. Nothing to gain everything to lose.
edit on 28-8-2013 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Nothing about this is going to be brief or limited...it was kinda funny reading that someone would think that. I told my son that this is like throwing a match on a field of dry grass...It will spread to Israel, Iran and Lebanon in no time at all....Then there is the threat of terrorist attacks on western interests in North America and across the World...I am Canadian and I feel that we will not be safe from this kind of warfare...It will come to a city near you...I'm am worried...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
It will be brief and limited, they are getting smarter with every round at getting things to reach a point where toppling regimes is almost easy. Neither Russia nor China wont do anything either, nothing much at least.

I really don't understand why everyone believes anything said publicly by any of the world leaders particularly those that sit atop the UN security council, why anyone thinks what they call the NWO is "Just America" is beyond me.

Let's be realistic, they have been playing divide and conquer through even what we called the "Cold War" nobody "on top" wants any "little guys" getting any real power none of our 1st world nations have any friends in the 3rd world, China and India have big appetites as well.

The people in charge in our nations sit around and have the same concerns "one nuke in Moscow" could cripple us, A cyber attack could destroy China's economy... "Over population will drink all the resources up" said everyone in the first world in unison...

It's all a game, for those of us in the civilized world to consume energy, control the computer and banking systems, sell our crap globally...

The truth is Drudge is right... No one actually gives a crap about Syria, it's all talk for us to sell weapons systems to our pawns respectively... maybe they will even put on a show, big stand off US and Russia... it will still be bs... a Russian system taking out a US ship would make more money for Russia than all of Syria is worth as every piss ant country still on the future chopping block scrambles to purchase them... fair trade to these guys, America completes the new silk road to China (look at a map people, who paid for these wars but Chinese debt?) they (Russia) get a one up in the weapons sales, troops die, these people don't care...

Our old "enemies" share the same concerns as us.... Modern weapons in small hands killing super powers (one day... so hit em now is the philosophy) Nations that aren't fluoridating the water and estrogenizing the food and whatever other means by which population is being kept in check...setting up permanent markets.

Remaining in Power...

Someone mentioned Russian response in georgia as "proof" they would strike back... If your divvying up the globe how is that a strike, your talking about pawns, we'll give you this you give us that.

I believe none of it, The general philosophy behind all this seems to be that what is being done hover horrible is in our best interests, creation of a "Global society" by any means necessary.... first "regions" break the globe into regions...

Probably sadly they are right....






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



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
USA beefing up naval presence in the gulf:
www.huffingtonpost.com...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join