US Military has Doubts about Syria Strike (will they refuse strike orders?)

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Not sure where the sailor/marine in those pictures are getting their info. In my unit, it's pretty well understood we aren't there to support either side. Heck, Assad having control of his arsenal is much better for the US than the rebels. And I'm not going to bother reading the initial article the OP put up about the Joint Chiefs saying we aren't ready, or that we need to be retrained.

There are not going to be (conventional) boots on the ground. CONOPS and OPLANS have existed for that region of the world for a while. Pretty sure between the AF and the Navy, we'd be able to take out their SAMs, the SYAF, and anything related to their chemical weapons. I doubt we'd even end up going after their armor and infantry. I would HOPE that our military involvement ends there. Don't see why Assad would retaliate against Israel, knowing we'd both end up destroying him. Random IEDs and such going on in the US however is my biggest fear.




posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan I can see them all looking at each other and saying 'not a chance' and then schooling him on what should happen.




You really think Obama hasnt consulted them already and is calling all the shots?



US has 5 warships in the Med and I can see Syria getting a few shots off at them, then it'll escalate and more of the American people will be blood hungry again.Increasing the offensive, then it's going regional.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Six technically, although the sixth is more a flagship than a warship (with a couple hundred Marines on board).



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
So when the US takes out the military leadership and some of the military, who is going to control the chemical weapons. Will they just become free for that taking. Honor system?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Thats what im thinking.


I have no idea what a missle strike will acomplish....


Would have been better to send special forces in to conficate the chem weapons and hold them for safe keeping till the wars over and a stability has been restored. No takeing sides or staying just in take the gas and come out.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


But then you essentially have a bunch of hostages on the ground. How do you resupply them? Rearm them when weapons run low (because both sides will go for them)? It's a logistics nightmare, as well as evacing and replacing anyone wounded.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I'll tell you what it will accomplish.... It will set in motion a series of unstoppable events that could culminate in one of the darkest periods of time humanity has ever known.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong?

We will see, there will be no stopping this one if they do go with direct US military intervention.

If they do, then it had better be swift and leave ALL enemies devastated, despite the collateral damage.

All or nothing, anything less will be... Regretful?



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HanzHenry
Congress or POTUS, who controls the Marine Corps?
POTUS...

not Congress. this is taught to all devil dogs.


.If the military advisors and the majority of senators and leaders disagreed with the president they could in essence "veto" his military actions. The president must get any military action approved by congress which is why we have our system of checks and balances. So Yes congress does have a say so if the pres. ask for it.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 

Essentially, Al Qaeda types will end up with a bunch of chemical weapons. You can probably guess were they will be used down the road.



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok
 


But then you essentially have a bunch of hostages on the ground. How do you resupply them? Rearm them when weapons run low (because both sides will go for them)? It's a logistics nightmare, as well as evacing and replacing anyone wounded.


Then best bet is to stay out then.


If you cant do anything constructive then may as well keep out.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
The problem with the immediate action of the American people is that they attacked Syria before they could prove that Assad truly did attack his people with Gaseous weapons. The Americans keep claiming that they do have proof but do not wish to show it. They cannot keep committing this form of aggression to different middle eastern countries. They are committing war crimes for the love of God.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
Here is my prediction.

1. US hits Syria
2. Syria, Hezbollah, possibly Iran hits Israel
3. Israel is hit hard, responds by promptly nuking every Arab country within range of their missiles. Because of the
"arab spring" all the govts of those countries are in a state of complete disarray so a response is not likely.
4. As we closed most of our embassies in the region, we have few casualties.
5. Possibly erupts into a global war.


Man, I hope you are wrong! Even if this does not turn into a global nuclear war this will still destroy the world economy! I feel the only reason why the US is not pushing for a full fledged strike is cause they don't want to
get into a escalating war with Russia, Iran and possibly China! This could be why the US has let it be known
that they don't intend to strike at many targets, as they have also let Syria know which areas they intend to target! IMO they are testing the waters to see if any of the big sharks will bite!



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Syrian Electronic Army Hacks Marines Website

blogs.wsj.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
This is interesting. Some protesters from the Overpasses for Impeachment movement get some reactions when military vehicles drive under the bridge.

edit on 4-9-2013 by PrinceAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Looks to me like 'The People' are finally seeing the 'Facts' of our government's agenda, & our Soldiers have gone through enough hell for their Oil. I'm no expert but I see an America that is done with being 'Tread on...'
If it was all about {for the most part...} Oil in Iraq, etc' then ask yourself what Syria has that the US wants? {or needs...} Nothing?
Do their 'prediction think tanks' look at a possibility of this being an intentional Al-Qaeda based distraction?- for the purpose of an attack on American soil? - I don't know that it all tie's in but I get the idea that its not an entirely unfounded concept.

I guess will see soon enough, the ones driving are taking us there regardless of our kicking & screaming, somebody is 'driving' right?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I love this guy!!!!






new topics
top topics
 
60
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join