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.
Originally posted by monkofmimir
Originally posted by Plugin
He just said; he knows the opinion of the people, not only in the US but also in Europe and elsewhere that the people wants this action to stop assad!??
Its like they're running through a pre-written script for this whole thing and are ignoring anything that doesn't fit.
Originally posted by TrustNO1evr
So what happens if Obama does strike Syria? What will the repercussions be on our mainland. What would happen. THE BIG PICTURE. What is the time line and how will it affect the U.S as a nation.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spy66
Having followed with some interest what all is going on and if I was the leader of Syria, this is what I would do and it is plausible.
The first is that Syria has been in an armed conflict with Israel for a long time. The past conflicts have left the leaders of Syria with the mentality of keeping assets mobile and easily moved. This way it is harder for the military assets from being destroyed. Now Syria has allies in the area and with Russia, that has been supplying resources to the government there. It did not take to the local uprising and started a civil war. That is what is going on with Syria right now. The problem is that too many different countries and groups are all involved in that country where it is going to take years to try to solve and calm down. But beyond that, if I was the leader of Syria, I would move the assets as close to, if not onto the Russian Naval base that is still an operational military facility. Now here is the problem that the US would have, to take out the Syrian assets, without harming what would be considered Russian territory. And Russia with its current military movements, simply put ships both close and far, that way any missile fired and doing damage gives them the provocation to respond to any attack.
It is a means of goading and ultimately with no goal no end game it will only serve to drain the USA more of its resources. Along with Iran and other countries siding with Syria, means that they are gaining more support from other countries. The question for all of those who are urging attacking Syria, are we prepared to go into a war with say Russia or China or both? If this is indeed true, the President may be hoping that congress with shoot it down and that way he will have a way out of this prediciment and safely turn the blame from himself.
Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by 2012newstart
What is going to happen in your view?
I fully expected US will not go for a small strike as it serves no purpose.
However the issue is post-strike. What happens after the bombs. US air campaign will end in 2-3 days. What after that?
Turkey is amassing forces on the border. 5000 US soldiers wait in Jordan. So what is the game here?
Next issue is escalation. What if couple of US ships go down or a few planes are hit? What happens then?
Originally posted by deviant300
The alleged chemical weapons use in Syria is a provocation carried out by the rebels to attract a foreign-led strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spy66
I don't believe that line, to punish a country for using chemical weapons. It is deplorable for the use of such, however, if the US is going to follow through on this, then it could be argued, that why has the US not brought more pressure to bear on North Korea? After all it has developed weapons of mass destructions, its people are starving, and the government is very brutal towards its citizens. Why has nothing been done there to alleviate their suffering? is starvation far better way to die versus that of being under a chemical attack or are both equal in such?