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.

 

CRS: DOD Estimates ‘Over 75,000 Troops’ Needed to Secure Syria’s Chem Weapons

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
According to the senate resolution draft:

The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria


But yet they need 100 days to do the job?

WASHINGTON--Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension


Three-months seems excessive. So does two-months really... I guess the extra thirty days is just in case plan A doesn't work.
www.usatoday.com... 9/03/senate-resolution-syria-strike/2760615/




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by supremecommander
 


You will see all hell break loose if there is a draft. That will awaken a bunch of asleep people. At least in my neighborhood. I have 2 boys, that is when I take to the street with a torch and a pitchfork. That would be it for me.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

SaturnFX
Its my understanding we aren't trying to secure anything...we are gonna just blow it all up, the ability to use, the factories, stockpiles, etc.
Might take a ton of people to secure it, but only a few drones to drop bombs on em and not worry.



Drones ?

They would have to get all the Syrian defense systems down first right ?

Syria is not Libya and it's not Afghanistan, and it's not Yemen.

Doesn't Syria have some missiles of their own ?

What IF they manage to sink a U.S. ship ?


That is part of the airstrike
from what I understand, it will be raining down bombs for about 24 hours, taking out all the defenses first, then the targets.

They aren't advanced enough to challenge western military strength though, it will be basically a one sided kicking, superman beating the crap out of some schoolyard bully.

I don't agree with this action mind you, just stating the fairly obvious.
Actually, I don't know how to think about the whole situation...I don't like being world police, but at the same time, seems nobody will be world police
This should be a UN action if anything...that's sort of why they exist.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its my understanding we aren't trying to secure anything...we are gonna just blow it all up, the ability to use, the factories, stockpiles, etc.
Might take a ton of people to secure it, but only a few drones to drop bombs on em and not worry.


That is the last thing to do with chemical weapons.

Seriously ?

Scatter it all over the place, Make it airborne .

No.

The only way to be sure is a repeat of Iraq. That was the only way to know what happened to Saddams WMDS.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
More like another Libya.. U.S. literally cannot afford another Iraq or Afghanistan.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


They are just making another mess that is going to come back and bite us in the arse.

Lob a few cruise missiles, and break out the 'Mission accomplished' banner.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by 31Bravo
 


They are just making another mess that is going to come back and bite us in the arse.

Lob a few cruise missiles, and break out the 'Mission accomplished' banner.

Oh, but Bohner and McCain say that if we don't act now it will be detrimental to the U.S.


Another sad thing is I've had two of my military friends on FaceBook express their desire to "get a piece of that Syria action".. in other words, we still have a lot of sheeple and pawns that aren't awake as they should be.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
So far I've heard the Senate has passed War for Syria... But I heard no boots on the ground. How do you fit 75,000 Military personnel in a fee planes(?) LoL



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
I keep waiting, wondering, when the Tonkin Gulf for this war will come.

2nd



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Here is the problem as I see it. Once they have weakened the Syrian defenses someone has to establish order. I read a very interesting letter today from Dempsey to Engel.

He clearly states that there must be a greater commitment.

Link to the PDF



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

BobM88
I keep waiting, wondering, when the Tonkin Gulf for this war will come.

2nd



Israel tried it the other day !!

They called it a 'test' after nobody took the bait to start shooting.

Clever Bastards they are.

It wouldn't have mattered who shot first.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 


did they pass it?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ah....were they behind that "missle launch"? I saw a bit of that but hadn't heard the final story on it.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Not yet, the resolution made it out of committee. It will be put to a vote when the Senate reconvenes on the 9th.
edit on 4-9-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

BobM88
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ah....were they behind that "missle launch"? I saw a bit of that but hadn't heard the final story on it.


They said they were doing a 'planned' test of their own defense system.

So they launched 2 of their own missiles.

I think Russian radar picked it up....

here's one thread; www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Here is the problem as I see it. Once they have weakened the Syrian defenses someone has to establish order. I read a very interesting letter today from Dempsey to Engel.

He clearly states that there must be a greater commitment.

Link to the PDF

Why? its bad guy fighting bad guy. let them tough it out.
Frankly, it makes more sense to keep both sides at a draw for as long as possible, tactically speaking.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its my understanding we aren't trying to secure anything...we are gonna just blow it all up, the ability to use, the factories, stockpiles, etc.
Might take a ton of people to secure it, but only a few drones to drop bombs on em and not worry.


That is the last thing to do with chemical weapons.

Seriously ?

Scatter it all over the place, Make it airborne .

No.

The only way to be sure is a repeat of Iraq. That was the only way to know what happened to Saddams WMDS.

Said no boots on the ground.
that to me says it will all be settled in airstrikes.
that means obliterating the ordinance and methods of dispersal.

No trying to rush in and grab it all, just set it all on fire and let someone else clean up the mess.

I don't know how chem weapons are stored, but I am not sure it is active while sitting in storage, Isn't it a mixture thing that happens right before or at the time of activation? One accidental explosion and it would be a nightmare if they are all active just sitting in a warehouse.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join