First stages of NO FLY Zone in Syria Passed!

First stages of NO FLY Zone in Syria Passed!

thehill.com

In the bill's final vote before passage, the Senate approved an amendment from McCain and others requiring a Pentagon report on options for a no-fly zone in Syria, which passed 92-6.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"#NDAA amdt on Syria calls for U.S.-enforced no-fly zone but doesn't authorize US ground troops,not a declaration of war, says Sen. Rand Paul"

There you have it. 2000 Gaza targets were dealt with, next Syrian missile sites and then onto Iran. This was all in the plan.

Things are happening fast. Where will we be Jan 1 2013? I have this feeling.......

thehill.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

After seeing the horror brought on some Syrian people by airstrikes, I kind of like this motion. Sure it might be a pretext to further western influence in the middle east, but bringing an end to the civil war would be a good move in my opinion. Yeah there might be islamic fundamentalist crazies wanting to overthrow asad, but there are a lot of decent syrian people being killed.

I sense a lot of contradictions at ATS. The two biggest ones are about the USA and muslims. First, the USA is seen as a warmonger when it stops stuff like this, but they are seen as uncaring when they don't help humanitarian struggles. Second, Muslims are accused of ignoring the plight of fellow muslims in situations like this and only waging war against the west, but if they go to help then they are seen as fundamentalist crazies trying to hijack the government....

reply to post by MeesterB


I agree, but calling this a civil war is a very risky move.

Something stinks about Syria, not the rotting corpses but the ones backing the rebels.

I agree with the OP, Gaza now does seem like nothing more than a pre-emptive hit to remove the local threat, before moving onto the further away but equal threat.

Will watch this, Jets flying over Syria will absolutely stoke the flames of war.

*keep in mind that in the past 2 days that nasty 'chemical' word has been coming up again, this time accusing assad of preparing his munitions.

not good!

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Yeah it stinks, but I'd call it a civil war. There is a good chance I'm biting the propaganda, but since I'm not there then I can only go off what the internet gives me.

I totally forgot about Assad's threat to use chemical weapons in the event of foreign intervention. I don't think it'll be a problem for U.S. forces, but I fear for the civilians. I wonder how China and Russia will stand on this issue now. I would think chemical weapons would cause them to change their non-intervention stance, but it's up in the air as they have been fairly firm in their opinion despite the duration of the situation.

reply to post by MeesterB

Russia has rejected the Western claims that Damascus might have plans to use chemical weapons against foreign-backed militants in Syria.

pressTV
not sure where China stands

reply to post by munkey66


coming from PressTV? integrity = 0.
But, it wouldnt make sense for Assad to use Chemical weapons against outside militants, it justnt seem fesible for a man tryin to retain power to use these weapons.



If the US keeps drumming on about it, then i definately wont believe it.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

coming from PressTV? integrity

As if our western mainstream news outlets are any better, and regrading the bill that was passed in senate what did you expect?

The majority in the senate is run by War Hawk RINOs Republicans including Sen John McCain who it seems he hasn't learned anything.

reply to post by CALGARIAN

. . . not a declaration of war, says Sen. Rand Paul"

If that was in the article before, it's not now.
I looked at your links and they are both to the same article, but it does not include that part, and ends right after the part quoted in the OP.

What about Lebanon and Hizbullah?

Originally posted by CALGARIAN


"#NDAA amdt on Syria calls for U.S.-enforced no-fly zone but doesn't authorize US ground troops,not a declaration of war, says Sen. Rand Paul"

There you have it. 2000 Gaza targets were dealt with, next Syrian missile sites and then onto Iran. This was all in the plan.

Things are happening fast. Where will we be Jan 1 2013? I have this feeling.......

thehill.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So some how the Pentagon having to show congress its plans for no fly zones (of course they have them already) some how equates to the first stage of a no fly zone being passed? Be nice if this place could get rid of the hyped up titles and just stick with the facts.

I think this is being blown a little out of proportion. What we have here is the Defense Policy Bill that is being passed. A small part of that bill is the requirement for the Pentagon to come up with a plan for a potential no fly zone in Syria. So nothing has even been presented regarding a no fly zone yet - just the requirement for the Pentagon to come with something. Once they do that, and it's approved, it will presumably have to go before congress and be voted on there. I suppose the POTUS could use his special Executive Order power to bypass that.

In other words, yes, you could say that this is the first step towards a no fly zone - but there is nothing officially on the table yet, never mind any kind of vote to put it into place. Definitely worth watching though!

Excellent news! Take out the Syrian Air Force then let the rebels finish off the job.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN


"#NDAA amdt on Syria calls for U.S.-enforced no-fly zone but doesn't authorize US ground troops,not a declaration of war, says Sen. Rand Paul"

There you have it. 2000 Gaza targets were dealt with, next Syrian missile sites and then onto Iran. This was all in the plan.

Things are happening fast. Where will we be Jan 1 2013? I have this feeling.......

thehill.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I dunno about you but I'll be in town getting drunk celebrating another year.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


A few things to note...

First off its a bill that has passed the Senate only. It is not a law nor is it even close for the President to sign it. The bill must go to conference committee in order to come up with a bill that the House and Senate agree on. Once that is done its voted on by both houses then goes to the President for signing into law or veto'ing it and sending it back.

Secondly it does not authorize a no fly zone -

In the bill's final vote before passage, the Senate approved an amendment from McCain and others requiring a Pentagon report on options for a no-fly zone in Syria.

It calls for the Pentagon to research that possibility and issue a report on it.

Aside from the above the remainder is pretty much the same thats been reported on. All this article contains is the latest dicussion and direction on the issues. Nothing is set in stone, no law has been passed authorizing it, and no laws have been passed calling for a no fly zone.

No fly zone is the death toll for Assad's regime and for he himself, because he will die in a smiliar manner as Ghadaffi, sodomized by a rifle with a round in his cranium if they catch him.

Feel sorry for those christians and jews living in Syria when he goes because the Muslim Brotherhood will get control of Syria, since they comprise the FSA and it's not gonna look too good for those folks, be a good time to start seeking a safer nation to dwell in.