Syria

Because I've seen the complete dump of Britam Defense files acquired by a certain Malaysian cyber warfare group. I don't believe "news".
The files are authentic. Those sites mined through the data and pointed out stuff related to Iran and Syria.

Malaysians acquired the files by targeting a particular mail transport agent that had weak security. Only mails that went through that MTA were intercepted. Strictly speaking, there's an "out of context" chance since no whole email discussion was intercepted, but it's perfectly clear that DoD outsourced dirty work to Britam Defense.

Syrian armed opposition is on the verge of collapse, and huge international pressure to sit down and do diplomacy would benefit them.
On the other hand, government allowed UN inspectors to inspect their CW stockpiles just few days ago.

Take a look at Syrian tactical situation, eg. territories controlled by gov't and opposition, and it all should be clear.
Russians came to conclusion that projectiles were fired from opposition controlled territory. There's more to investigation than broadcasting cell-phone shot footage of people lurking around a crash site and making stupid assumptions.
 
So, who here wants the US to intervene with a military strike?
 
I'll ask a provocative question here:

The US is certain that Assad used chemical weapons. The US decides to draw the consequences and drops bombs on Syria.

...then what?
 
No, that's not why I want it. I just don't want to the world to keep watching. I understand all your arguments and also fear for the consequences.
It's a dilemma.
 
I can't see how anything good will come out of this at all. Most of all, because there is no clear, and not even a vague statement at what a strike is supposed to achieve. All I hear is what it's not going to be: They are not going to try and depose Assad. They are not going to try and aid the rebels. They are not going to invade Syria. They are not going to do this, they are not going to do that. What the hell are they going to try and do?
 
They might try to hit objects like airfields and/or installations of chemical weapons. Using cruise missiles from these 4 destroyers - USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS Barry and USS Mahan.

At least airfields sounds like a good idea, because then it will be more difficult for the regime to make bombardments. These attacks could take 2 or 3 days.

When the regime continues, they'll do it again, and probably harder.
 
May I remind you that there is still no proof that the Syrian regime was the one to use the gas? Just like it is not known who the snipers were who fired at the UN inspectors outside Damascus and stopped them from doing their jobs?

I have no love for Assad, but that is where I think it gets dangerous. If it turns out the US were bombing Syria for wrong reasons, that would be a considerable boost for his credibility inside Syria. Especially if there were civilian deaths - and no matter how "surgical" an operation has been in the past, there have always been civilian deaths. Besides, I wouldn't put it past Assad to have military facilities put right next to children's hospitals or orphanages. Dictators have been known to be that cynical.

This whole military strike option reeks of a completely headless action done because those in charge think that they have to do something, and blowing things up is the only thing they know to do.
 
Do you think they're hoping the threat of bombing alone/risk of seriously upsetting the US would be a sufficient deterrent for further use of chemical weapons? Not that I think they wouldn't go ahead and do it if Syria didn't comply, however.
 
Brigantium said:
Do you think they're hoping the threat of bombing alone/risk of seriously upsetting the US would be a sufficient deterrent for further use of chemical weapons? Not that I think they wouldn't go ahead and do it if Syria didn't comply, however.
Click to expand...

I don't think that, if Assad was the one to use the chemical weapons, a threat or actual bombing is going to deter him. A foreign strike is going to work in his favour, because he will be able to say that the nation is under attack. It will most likely drive many neutral Syrians into his arms, and strengthen him. It will probably also be a good argument for increased support from his foreign allies.

Forostar said:
I hope there will be more on the proof before all this is going to happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think there will be. Where is that proof supposed to come from? The UN inspectors haven't been able to gather much evidence, and they are still in Syria. Kerry is going to pull a Colin Powell tomorrow, and the US is going to blow Syria up for better or worse.
 
Perun said:
The UN inspectors haven't been able to gather much evidence, and they are still in Syria.
Click to expand...
I thought they were going in again, today(?)

But I'll tell you something else, probably also provoking (sorry). I think they should have acted way earlier. Waiting until the 100.000th victim or use of chemical weapons is a shame.
Perun said:
Kerry is going to pull a Colin Powell tomorrow, and the US is going to blow Syria up for better or worse.
Click to expand...
The difference this time, is that the humanitarian problems in Syria have come out screaming from our TVs for about two years.
 
Perun said:
Kerry is going to pull a Colin Powell tomorrow, and the US is going to blow Syria up for better or worse.
Click to expand...

It only counts as a Colin Powell if it turns out for worse. If everything the US says is right, they knock out the Syrian reserves of sarin with little civilian deaths, and that's it, then...okay. Maybe this was a good thing. In the end, I don't care if they target the bases that the rebels have that could have sarin as well.

Forostar said:
But I'll tell you something else, probably also provoking (sorry). I think they should have acted way earlier. Waiting until the 100.000th victim or use of chemical weapons is a shame.
Click to expand...

I said 2 years ago we should put up a no-fly-zone and let the Syrians sort it out with AKs. I meant it then and I mean it now.
 
I maintain that I do not see how dropping bombs on Syria will solve humanitarian problems.

Earlier action would of course have prevented a lot. I explained two years ago in this thread why none was undertaken. But action for the sake of action is not a good strategy. If the US were really so concerned about the people of Syria, there would have been other ways.
 
The US isn't concerned about the people of Syria, though. The US is concerned that next time someone has a war that they want to get involved in that the opposition will use chemical weapons. They want to set a very large example of "use chemical weapons? WE WILL FUCK YOU UP. So don't even THINK about using it on us."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top