Attacks on Syria Imminent?

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


I forgot about the embassy closings. I guess we know they have known they were going to strike Syria long before the gas attacks huh?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Reports are that they are safe in Iran. I don't know if that's true .. but that's what is being reported.

I see those reports aswell, but we got the same reports in the hunt for Saddam, and also Gaddafi, so I'm kinda skeptical about Assad being in Iran or any other Syrian allies , no doubt his wife and kids are safe hidden away deep in Iran or Russia, but like Saddam and Gaddafi, they couldn't leave for the morale and pride of the country.

Plus the world intelligence agency will have every available man on the ground and equipment tracking everyone and anything leaving or entering Syrian boarders right now.

My money on Assad being deep in a Syrian bunker right now, and the Americans waiting for movement.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

Scandalous? You think it appropriate to send British services into a war with less than 20% approval from the population? That my friend would be scandalous.

There is no convincing case made to the public that either:

-Assad ordered chemicals weapons use
-Bombing the Syrian Army and killing more people will prevent loss of life.
-There is an end game and exit strategy
- We wont degrade the Assad regime putting the Al Qaeda types in charge of Syria

As it stands at the moment the right decision was made.

Parliament delivered a 'D- , please try harder' to the executive.

Yes, as it happens, I do.

The commission of military action is removed from the democratic process for good reason - those tasked with making the decision need to be fully informed on the reality, something which can never occur in public.

Second, there will almost always be minority support for military action, quite rightly so unless we live in a world of butchers. That doesn't mean it is right to do nothing whilst people die.

Historically, the decision to commit military action has resided with the PM in the UK and President in the US, not with Parliament, Congress or the public. It is only because of the unlawful act in Iraq that politicians now feel their hands are tied and need to seek approval from their legislatures.

Of course, If Syrian forces attack British interests in the ME then there is no such obligation and you can bet your bottom dollar the right decision will be taken by Cameron and Cameron alone.

Originally posted by benrl
Thursday, No moon.

They won't likely to attack when the light of the moon would make them easily seen.

If there is going to be an attack, it would be at night, and when the moon would not give them away.

So you're assuming the first attack won't be a wave of cruise missles?

Originally posted by St Udio
firstly... any attack on Syria by the USA will be an illegal act

On what basis do you say this?

I fully accept Iraq was illegal on the basis the clear aim was regime change which is prohibited by the UN charter.

now on the info-wars loop of news.. there were citizen reports that B-I and Stealth Bombers are all heading to east coast starting points... rumor is that the aircrafts are being loaded with bunker busters so as to destroy all the Assad deep bunker command facilities and Assads known hideouts...to destroy all his regime keeping infrastructure which he depends upon

thus the ultimate chessmove of destroying all the Assad assets that keep him in power..

Interesting. Is this sourced from Info-wars or am i reading your post incorrectly?

but leaving all the arms & gas at the hands of the FSA Radicals to pillage and use on the remaining troops and loyalists of Assad including all the Muslim Alawites see: www.30-days.net...

Not sure I'll sympathise if that was the case. Any person who works as part of a state sanctioned attack on civilians deserves all thats coming to them in my book.

Originally posted by greavsie1971
reply to post by citizenx1

 

You have been watching too much BBC. Get onto youtube and see the vile atrocities the rebels have been commiting. (including chemical attacks in January)

I don't watch the BBC for News.

I also don't care what the rebels have been doing. They aren't the ones who launched chemical weapons on civilians - and let us remember, civilians is not code for "rebels".

We would be fools to intervene. What happened to international condemnation of BOTH sides to force some kind of cease fire and peace talks. Bombing the country means killing people. We would be as bad as them. It is NEVER the solution. I wish my fellow British people would stop watching the BBC. After the Libya lies they had to appologise for (not to the Uk, in fact it wasnt even reported in the UK. On BBC world they were showing appologies every hour) Im surprised they are allowed to continue broadcasting news.

edit on 31-8-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)

What happens in a civil war is a matter for the parties involved - until one oversteps the accepted norms of conflict as Assad's regime has now done.

I don't think anyone cares about the rebels, those in favour of action are concerned about the civilians.

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by cody599

 

Doesn't really make sense to hit SAM sites if nobody's committing troops to the theatre, no need for air support or transport.

Costs money to make more SAM's though, looks like a proxy war / profit making endeavor.

I just put up a list of possible targets

It would be a good chance for USA to check out Russia's new technology

The middle east has always been a testing ground for the USA and Russia

Safer for them

Cody

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

Scandalous? You think it appropriate to send British services into a war with less than 20% approval from the population? That my friend would be scandalous.

There is no convincing case made to the public that either:

-Assad ordered chemicals weapons use
-Bombing the Syrian Army and killing more people will prevent loss of life.
-There is an end game and exit strategy
- We wont degrade the Assad regime putting the Al Qaeda types in charge of Syria

As it stands at the moment the right decision was made.

Parliament delivered a 'D- , please try harder' to the executive.

Yes, as it happens, I do.

The commission of military action is removed from the democratic process for good reason - those tasked with making the decision need to be fully informed on the reality, something which can never occur in public.

Second, there will almost always be minority support for military action, quite rightly so unless we live in a world of butchers. That doesn't mean it is right to do nothing whilst people die.

Historically, the decision to commit military action has resided with the PM in the UK and President in the US, not with Parliament, Congress or the public. It is only because of the unlawful act in Iraq that politicians now feel their hands are tied and need to seek approval from their legislatures.

Of course, If Syrian forces attack British interests in the ME then there is no such obligation and you can bet your bottom dollar the right decision will be taken by Cameron and Cameron alone.

Needles to say I disagree with you to the maximum extent possible.

I do not accept the nation should be taken to war on the desires of 'my betters'. I do not accept my countrymen need to die on the whim of a small select group of bleeding hearts.

I do not accept that a war that must be waged for reasons that cannot be publicly admitted can ever be right.

Parliament has supremacy. Yes the PM can engage the nation in war through crown prerogative. Thats a matter of practicality since the PM has to be free to respond instantly to an attack on the nation.

However, he still has to explain his actions to parliament. Parliament at any time can bring the sitting government down. It should be the case that for instances where we have not been attacked and its a purely elective adventure, parliament should be consulted first. It is MPs that answer directly to the will of the people.

Hopefully camerons action will set this as the new precedent. That'll be the one good thing he's done, even if by mistake.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by citizenx1

Originally posted by xcellante
I thought it would have been yesterday myself.

That was until Parliament grew a set and stood up to Cameron. Never saw that one coming.

I don't think anyone did. It was scandalous - and will become highly controversial as time goes on. The British are a humane people and will not want to sit idly by whilst repeated images of genocide are beamed into their homes.

Scandalous? You think it appropriate to send British services into a war with less than 20% approval from the population? That my friend would be scandalous.

There is no convincing case made to the public that either:

-Assad ordered chemicals weapons use
-Bombing the Syrian Army and killing more people will prevent loss of life.
-There is an end game and exit strategy
- We wont degrade the Assad regime putting the Al Qaeda types in charge of Syria

As it stands at the moment the right decision was made.

Parliament delivered a 'D- , please try harder' to the executive.

Yes, as it happens, I do.

The commission of military action is removed from the democratic process for good reason - those tasked with making the decision need to be fully informed on the reality, something which can never occur in public.

Second, there will almost always be minority support for military action, quite rightly so unless we live in a world of butchers. That doesn't mean it is right to do nothing whilst people die.

Historically, the decision to commit military action has resided with the PM in the UK and President in the US, not with Parliament, Congress or the public. It is only because of the unlawful act in Iraq that politicians now feel their hands are tied and need to seek approval from their legislatures.

Of course, If Syrian forces attack British interests in the ME then there is no such obligation and you can bet your bottom dollar the right decision will be taken by Cameron and Cameron alone.

Needles to say I disagree with you to the maximum extent possible.

I do not accept the nation should be taken to war on the desires of 'my betters'. I do not accept my countrymen need to die on the whim of a small select group of bleeding hearts.

I do not accept that a war that must be waged for reasons that cannot be publicly admitted can ever be right.

Parliament has supremacy. Yes the PM can engage the nation in war through crown prerogative. Thats a matter of practicality since the PM has to be free to respond instantly to an attack on the nation.

However, he still has to explain his actions to parliament. Parliament at any time can bring the sitting government down. It should be the case that for instances where we have not been attacked and its a purely elective adventure, parliament should be consulted first. It is MPs that answer directly to the will of the people.

Hopefully camerons action will set this as the new precedent. That'll be the one good thing he's done, even if by mistake.

You are free to disagree but the reality is as we both accept that the PM has the ultimate decision.

Lets consider the following -

Taking this decision to Parliament was a PR exercise in the wake of the Iraq fiasco.

It blew up spectacularly in the face of the PM and will almost certainly discourage future PMs from doing so when they have formed a view on military action.

Iraq will eventually fade in peoples memories and the usual status quo will return.

In my view, rightly so.

reply to post by citizenx1


Time will tell. I hope not. I suspect the availability of information to people and thier ability to share it has changed more than people realise.

I find your position interesting. Presumably you would prefer to do away with parliament and just elect a president and a cabinet to do what they like for 4 years.

After all, war and the judgement about whether to engage in it or not is the most important responsibility wielded by the state. If the public deserves no say in that why in anything else?

Don't forget the G20 summit is next week in Russia.

Obama will be there.

So will Putin and the Saudis.

No attack until later..................

They all need to get the 'economics' straightened out first !!

The President is giving a speech on TV in about 40 minutes,
I wonder if this could be it?

I want to see this evidence Obama keeps churping on about now tbh, if that evidence proves without a doubt that Assad did use the chemical weapons and the USA attack them then we could possibly be looking at an all out war which would require boots on the ground, from there its the makings of world war three, because i think if the USA attacks SYRIA, then RUSSIA, SYRIA, Syrias allies and possibly CHINA will either try to take out any missiles that are fired by the USA or they might even directly attack the USA military, which would automatically bring the UK, FRANCE and the rest of Europe in to the mix, an escalation would be inevitable in that scenario imo

This whole thing doesn't settle right with me. I obviously don't now every single thing about whats going on, but deep down this feels wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if the States were the one to cause the chemical attack or have their hands in it somehow. This makes about as much sense as the whole Iraq war, and feels wrong.