US plans for '3 days of attacks' on Syria

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
US plans for '3 days of attacks' on Syria.


The Pentagon is readying more intense and longer attacks on Syria than originally planned, set to last three days, the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday.

War planners now aim to unleash a heavy barrage of missile strikes to be followed swiftly by additional attacks on targets that may have been missed or remain standing after the initial launch, the Times cited officials as saying.

Two US officers told the newspaper that the White House has asked for an expanded target list to include "many more" than the initial list of around 50 targets.

Looks like they're leaking info.

Doesnt look like we'll be able to stop these maniacs.

Dont stop trying. Keep those Congressional phones ringing...

God help us all.
edit on 8-9-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Aren't they coming from a 90 day minimum attack? Seems to me their winding down.

IF ever an attack would occur. The only thing i'm not out is whether or not Obama will wait until the evidence is brought to the UN or not.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


This must be plan #51!

They keep changing it.

They have to plan for everything, so best to keep going until either we turn back (I highly doubt that) or implement plan #355.....
edit on 8-9-2013 by Darkblade71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
They are trying to sell the American public that this will only be three days.
But most of us are smart enough to know that isn't the case.
Once the bombs start falling over there, the players involved will mean this will grow into WWIII.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
yep, the old Shock-&-Awe strategy used on Iraq... 100 hours of air attacks to get Iraq out of Kuwait, remember that highway-of-death


24 X 3 = 96 hours... the military has to beat their old benchmark time & deliver even greater destruction to even more targets eh

 


but yeah.... the mission was first only a 10s of millions attack, limited to maybe 50 cruise missiles


it had been reported last week about B1 & stealth bombers being moved..~.way before 0bama decided to hold off for Congress~ those big airlift bombers carry either nukes or Bunker-Busters !
so i was on top of the 0bama ruse in earlier posts. comparing the { 0bama ploy of being the salesman with his foot in the door but just around the corner of the entry there was an armed group of contractors set to invade your home} ...
edit on 8-9-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Forget 3 days, if history has taught me anything I'll be happy if we get out within 3 years. Unfortunately, at this point 3 years seems like wishful thinking.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
50 target in 3 days..what a funny..they think this rocket unguard? better think again..



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


...might want to try that very basic math again.

24X3 is 72 hours. 3 days dude, 72 hours.

Edit to add: I believe the new tomahawk cruise missiles are around 1.4 million apiece. The old ones were around half a million. So shooting off around 50 (which is aN incredibly low amount to hit 50 targets with) still puts us around 100 million. In reality I expect hundreds to be shot off. I don't know if Syria has a missile shiels that can stop any. Also if any patriot missiles are used (which are much bigger), those are several million apiece.
edit on 8-9-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The strike plan is 3 days, the mission plan is 90 days to allow for any further follow up strikes if needed.
The Pres. can order more strikes without further approval from the US government during this 90 day period.
"Should be wrapped up by Xmas
" I think the saying goes.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They are trying to sell the American public that this will only be three days.
But most of us are smart enough to know that isn't the case.
Once the bombs start falling over there, the players involved will mean this will grow into WWIII.



I think you are right. China and Russia are allies of Syria and they have sent their ships to the area...supposedly to observe; I think there is more to it than that.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Maybe with a little help from the universe, a comet or very large asteroid can help make the adjustment that mankind needs at this point in human existence. This world has grown to be so violent and full of power hungry leaders that a reset seems like the only real resolve to peace. That part of the world has been in a conflict and incapable of getting along for over a thousand years. Power struggles in Somalia leave thousands of children and women raped and beaten every year, and corrupt leaders look the other way. which is the infection that runs deep in the leadership globally. how will it ever be corrected? wars?? dropping bombs on cities? yeah that has worked out so well in the decades of campaigns that the US got involved in. And the UN seems to do nothing to actually keep any peace either. I have always hated the ideals of punishing the whole class for one idiot.

Violence begets Violence

Maybe a new iceage of global scale really is needed to cool things down. ..1000 years of peace anyone?



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The American brass would use any excuse they can to flex their muscles. Why? because it's the perfect way to let the old enemies know just what you're capable of.

The world was watching when the F-117 made it's debut in the first gulf war, and the world was watching when the predator made waves in Afghanistan. If they truly wanted to help, there are plenty of other nations that desperately need an intervention, But Syria is in the news and therefore it's the best way to intimidate leaders through a vulgar display of power.



edit on 8-9-2013 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Okay..i arrived to this site assuming that educated people were occupying server slots.


So how many out there believe that this is a 3 day conflict. If that's the case, can someone within here explain to me how 470+ guided missiles that have designated targets in and around syria be completed in 3 days.

Oops, i made a bobo, we cant speak about lintel regarding strategic plans before they have been executed. If thats the case then perhaps your 3rd in line bunker advises should not have used their cell phones assuming that its encryption is the best in the west.

?



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thecakeisalie
The American brass would use any excuse they can to flex their muscles. Why? because it's the perfect way to let the old enemies know just what you're capable of.

The world was watching when the F-117 made it's debut in the first gulf war, and the world was watching when the predator made waves in Afghanistan. If they truly wanted to help, there are plenty of other nations that desperately need an intervention, But Syria is in the news and therefore it's the best way to intimidate leaders through a vulgar display of power.



edit on 8-9-2013 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)


The "Brass" has already gone on record that they don't have a long term plan for Syria and the Pentagon actually advised against it. And the F-117 made it's debut in Panama, not the Gulf War.

And from what I can see in the various news outlets, both mainstream and alternate, no one seems to be intimidated this time around.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
yep, the old Shock-&-Awe strategy used on Iraq... 100 hours of air attacks to get Iraq out of Kuwait, remember that highway-of-death


It was George the Younger who used Shock and Awe in 2003 with little results.

Bush Sr's invasion was extremely successful. His only mistake was leaving Saddam in power.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Manipulativebehavior
 


Most of the time I think a bunch of teenagers or older folks looking for a little entertainment are on this site. I brush off the idea we are infiltrated or think that perhaps covert messages are being sent on simple ATS threads.
But you my friends put a chill up my spine.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



And from what I can see in the various news outlets, both mainstream and alternate, no one seems to be intimidated this time around.


What is there to be intimidated by? I count 5 Burke class destroyers and one Marine amphibian ship, last seen sheltering in-port....and likely a very very good place for a ship of that kind in what is about to happen.

We have no credible ground force of any kind, anywhere, to back up anything ...nor any clear path to build one if we needed to in escalation. So, it's a move that amounts to an obvious bluff for going further. I think that's what is most certain to doom this and make it a very deadly but largely empty gesture. It's not Monica Missiles, but indeed... Intimidated?

I've never seen the U.S. set up for brand new hostilities with a fully operational opposing nation....with THIS little in forces. Syria hasn't even lost an AA radar yet, and this is all we have, with nothing in quick reserve? I don't think we're being taken seriously ...and if we MUST commit to this action at all? This sure isn't a position I'd call real strength to do it from.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait because Kuwait didn't pay them money they had said they would pay for the Iran/Iraq war and also Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraqi oil wells using slant drilling?

They intentionally left him in power and would have never bothered taking him out if Saddam hadn't decided to start using/trying to use Russian currency for oil trade. At least that's what I have read several places.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

I've never seen the U.S. set up for brand new hostilities with a fully operational opposing nation....with THIS little in forces. Syria hasn't even lost an AA radar yet, and this is all we have, with nothing in quick reserve? I don't think we're being taken seriously ...and if we MUST commit to this action at all? This sure isn't a position I'd call real strength to do it from.


Obama, which means the U.S., is quickly cruising for a bruising in my opinion. I hope that it doesn't happen and that he is somehow shamed into backing down, but I don't see it as he is quite the narcissist.

The average military planner prefers 3 to 1 odds when planning. That's common sense. We don't have that here.

My prediction is if Obama takes action. We will get spanked in the first few days with little to show for it, and then it will escalate from there with terrorist bombings throughout Europe and the U.S.. For which there will be more retaliation and then it turns into WW3 all on. No more brush fire wars but full fledged war.


I'm too old for this [SNIP]



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Well you need to consider the naval assets in the Persian gulf, and include the multiple active US bases throughout the ME, if the US wants to get something done unilaterally, it has the means to do so.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join