Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Syria: How could Assad potentially respond militarily to Cruise Missile strikes?
Options
Comments
-
-
Just to point quickly also, the anti Russia camp is really coming out here too. All these claims about Russian weapons when they are merely fulfilling signed contracts and even delaying some, this is the same thing America is doing in Egypt and in stark contrast to Saudi,Qatar and Turkey who are facilitating and funding arms shipments of over 400 tons to the rebels to keep the war going.
People are trying to discredit Russian decision making now by portraying the new homosexual law passed there recently. It is a very backward step but it is only banning giving information on homosexuality to under 18s (but this is probably the people that need the information the most as it is under 18s that are going through a turbulent time and trying to make life choices about themselves) but it is in no way shape or form in the same league as say Qatar where you can land in jail for 5 years for engaging in homosexual acts!!And no calls from Stephen Fry to boycott the World Cup in 2022...
The US can harp on about democracy all it wants - Assad won by a large majority in the last election in Syria , Bahrains peaceful anti govt protest were brutally crushed with US help and in Saudi Arabia it is outlawed to protest against the govt!!And guess which nation has not even had one election since its inception in 1934....yep..Saudi Arabia but all you'd hear from Hilary Clinton and the State Dept previously was they were 'concerned' by certain lack of liberties in the Gulf state...
That's without even getting into Saudis history of exporting and funding extremist ideologies around the globe for years, its state funded extremist colleges where all of the terrorist supporting clerics learn their trade and its state sponsored sectarian policy of destroying religious site and graves which do not conform with their narrow and backward religious views but that's for another day and another thread!!!
I've read most of your previous longer post. Your portrayal of the crisis and reactions is very accurate and rational.0 -
I'm assuming you don't believe Assad's forces carried out the gas attack on Aug 21st... I'd love to hear whether you think the US Intel report is a lie or not?
If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?
I'm open to the argument.. I've u-turned on views before. It wouldn't be the first time.0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »I'm assuming you don't believe Assad's forces carried out the gas attack on Aug 21st... I'd love to hear whether you think the US Intel report is a lie or not?
If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?
I'm open to the argument.. I've u-turned on views before. It wouldn't be the first time.
Yes, I am assuming that based on testimonies from soldiers who are on that particular front line.
I guess that the "intel" report you refer to is the bunch of assumptions and lies, some of which are based on "open source, social media evidence".
I'd like to wait until the UN report tells us whether the victims (how many exactly?) were victims of a nerve agent (which experts don't agree with) or a toxic industrial chemical - which are being used by the "rebels" in a desperate aim to build chemical based weapons.
Syria is ready for the strikes and the most important equipment is being kept mobile. They will absorb the strikes and prepare for the militants to take advantage. I dont think there will be retaliation because it is not worth it. As Hezbollah said - they will assess the scale of the strikes and will act accordingl0 -
If it is a lie then how could they get away with it... would that conspiracy not have to be massive and watertight?
For US and Britain standards of lying, actually, it was a really bad attempt. Why are you asking if it "massive and watertight"? Go and read iyourself and you will see that it has many holes and gaps. They keep saying "we assess that the rebels cannot use chemical weapons" - this is a big lie. Sarin was used on US troops in Iraq by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda has a big history of producing WMD0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
How do you assess their statement that the only rockets fired at the time in that location were fired from state positions towards rebel occupied areas according to Sat observation.0
-
Why would they continue to shell the effected area so much, as is stated in the Intel report?0
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »How do you assess their statement that the only rockets fired at the time in that location were fired from state positions towards rebel occupied areas according to Sat observation.
I think this is bull-****. Rockets are the primary weapon of the militants second only to their rifles. Also, there would have to be a huge amount of artillery that night to kill that many (again, how many?) - they tell us 200 died... and now its 1500??
Anyway, Russia has sattalite images too and from what I gather, they have been shown to the UN.
You would be crazy to take the word as truth from the CIA! or whatever intelligence agency,
Syria does not need to use chemical weapons0 -
Advertisement
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »Why would they continue to shell the effected area so much, as is stated in the Intel report?
Why are you taking away from the context? this area is being shelled for months, and likewise, Damascus is getting attacked from the area too. its a warzone and even at this moment they are fighting in the same area.0 -
US congress officials who have seen the full US report describe the evidence as 'circumstantial'.
Following report is from SANA (main Syrian news agency)
Foreign Ministry: What Kerry presented is based on old stories published by terrorists over a week ago
An official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry said that after days of media exaggeration about what the US administration described as decisive evidence, US Secretary of State John Kerry only produced material based on old stories which were published by terrorists over a week ago and are full of fabrication and lies.
The source said that the Ministry is surprised that one of the bigger countries in the world is attempting to deceive its public opinion in such a naïve manner by relying on non-evidence, and that the Ministry denounces the US act of basing its positions on war and peace on what was published on social networking sites, which the Ministry views as a desperate attempt to talk the world into accepting the upcoming US aggression.
The source said that the numbers quoted by Kerry are fictional and produced by armed groups in Syria and the opposition abroad, both of whom instigate the US aggression, adding that this scene brings to mind the lies promoted by Colin Powell before the invasion of Iraq.
The Source said that Foreign and Expatriates Ministry confirms that all the accusations leveled by Kerry against the Syrian state are lies and devoid for truth for the following reasons:
1-Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence that it used the alleged chemical weapons, and Kerry relied on fabricated images from the internet, and the alleged call made by a Syrian officer after the alleged attack is too ridiculous to be discussed.
2-Syria never impeded or restricted the international investigation committee, on the contrary; as the UN Secretary-General has lauded the Syrian cooperation with the committee in his most recent call with the Foreign and Expatriates Minister on 30/8/2013, asserting that Syria permitted the committee to move exactly as per the agreement signed by the two sides.
3-The UN itself said time and again that the traces of using any form of toxic gas do not dissipate over time, and the proof of this is that the UN sent the investigation committee 5 months after the Syrian government requested an investigation of Khan al-Assal incident. Therefore, the Syrian government did not delay the investigation committee's access to the alleged attack site, as this occurred within 48 hours of the arrival of UN envoy Angela Kane to Damascus.
4-The Syrian government affirms that Kerry's allegations that the Syrian Army knew about chemical weapons use three days prior to the incident are lies, as proven by the fact that Syria requested the investigation committee to visit al-Baharia area where Syrian Army soldiers were exposed to toxic gas, and the committee met the affected soldiers in the hospital.
5-If the aggression on Syria, as Kerry claims, intends to halt the use of chemical weapons, we would like to remind Kerry and the United States that Syria was the first to propose a draft resolution at the Security Council to make the Middle East free of all forms of weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States was the one who prevented the draft resolution from being passed.
6-Regrarding Kerry's hints which he made to bypass the Security Council under the pretext that the investigation committee isn't responsible for determining who used chemical weapons and that it's task is only to verify that such weapons were used or not, the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry would like to affirm that the committee's tasks were deiced upon by the Security Council, and that the US had pressured the committee to make its authority this limited, something which Kerry, being State Secretary, certainly knows.
The source said that the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry, while appreciating Kerry's concern over the Syrian people's security, affirms that this pretext has become exposed to everyone, and that under the pretext of defending the Syrian people, the US is paving the way for an aggression against this very people, an aggression which will claim hundreds of innocent victims whose blood will be on the hands of the United States and those who join it in this aggression morally, politically or effectively.
The source concluded by saying that this unilateral behavior only serves the political interests of the United States, not the interests of its people, and that it throws aside all international law and blatantly violates international legitimacy and the UN charter.
Al-Moallem: Syria rejects any incomplete report before UN experts wrap up investigations
Syria rejects any incomplete report by the UN General Secretariat before the UN experts wrap up missions and have the results of laboratory tests of gathered samples checked, and conduct investigations at sites where the Syrian soldiers had been exposed to toxic gases, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem said.
Al-Moallem was speaking during phone call on Friday with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that focused on the work of the UN mission investigating an alleged chemical weapons' use.
The UN Secretary-General thanked Syria for its full cooperation with the mission, saying the UN Secretariat is in the process of evaluating the results of mission's work and submitting its findings to international accredited labs.
Al-Moallem inquired about the motives behind having the experts withdrawn from Damascus before completing their mission. ''They will return to complete their mission,'' Ki-moon replied.
Syria expects the UN Secretary-General to maintain objectivity and rebuff pressure, and play his role in preserving world security and peace, al-Moallem said, adding Syria throws its weight behind his efforts to convene Geneva conference as it considers a political solution an exit route from the current situation.
''Any aggression on Syria would wreck efforts for finding a political solution, al-Moallem pointed out.
Source: Syrian Arab News Agency "SANA"
08-30-20130 -
I read that yes and it says what exactly?
firstofall... it's from SANA and I hope nobody here to going to say that that is not grounds for instant dismissal.
After not dismissing it and reading it - it doesn't offer anything specific it just quotes a 'source' saying everything the US is saying is untrue. Great mechanism.
It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.
"Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence"
They can prove it was the rebel side who did this?
It says some of its troops were effected and were visited in hospital. So what if they were, that proves nothing at all about anything. No Syrian troops died form this attack. 1500 civilians did.
It says that the numbers quoted by the US were false - ok then... so what numbers are correct? and where did they come from?
as far as no.5 goes - are we seriously going to even address that? do we all not know they tried surreptitiously to build a reactor and they currently store hundreds of tons of chem weapons not for disposal but for potential use against foreign aggressors?0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »I read that yes and it says what exactly?
firstofall... it's from SANA and I hope nobody here to going to say that that is not grounds for instant dismissal.
After not dismissing it and reading it - it doesn't offer anything specific it just quotes a 'source' saying everything the US is saying is untrue. Great mechanism.
It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.
"Syria has challenged the US to produce one piece of true and logical evidence"
They can prove it was the rebel side who did this?
It says some of its troops were effected and were visited in hospital. So what if they were, that proves nothing at all about anything. No Syrian troops died form this attack. 1500 civilians did.
It says that the numbers quoted by the US were false - ok then... so what numbers are correct? and where did they come from?
as far as no.5 goes - are we seriously going to even address that? do we all not know they tried surreptitiously to build a reactor and they currently store hundreds of tons of chem weapons not for disposal but for potential use against foreign aggressors?
Where did the figure of 1500 come from?It says they didn't stop the UN investigators at all from reaching the site? We'll see about that. That needs addressing. I expect it is simply a game of semantics. I'll return to that.
???0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8081
Continues to look increasingly likely that there will be no military intervention, or that it will be very limited in nature.
Either-way the Syrian military will have had nearly three weeks to reposition its forces based on the intelligence that Western governments ill advisedly leaked throughout the last week.0 -
The massacre happened early Wed morning, shelling continued til Sunday, after pressure and a late arrival by Angela Kane (who arrived way after the initial team) and with pressure from Russia, they stopped the shelling and allowed the inspectors to start on the Morning wherein they were shot at by a sniper.
There are endless reports of the inspectors not being allowed to the site for 4 days even though they were 10 miles away. That report you quote simply changes it around and depicts a situation where they allowed them in from the moment Angela Kane arrived. They were not allowed to the site for 4 days and Assad continued to shell the site heavier than he had been previously. I am well aware that evidence can be found even years after an attack which can prove a chemical agent was used - as in Halabja for instance but that is not the point - shelling the site destroys and disperses and complicates the site obviously and keeping inspectors out by continuing to shell the area was clearly a tactic.... why would they do that? why not stop shelling, secure the site and ensure the UN guys get in there and prove you didn't do it?? makes no sense0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »The massacre happened early Wed morning, shelling continued til Sunday, after pressure and a late arrival by Angela Kane (who arrived way after the initial team) and with pressure from Russia, they stopped the shelling and allowed the inspectors to start on the Morning wherein they were shot at by a sniper.
There are endless reports of the inspectors not being allowed to the site for 4 days even though they were 10 miles away. That report you quote simply changes it around and depicts a situation where they allowed them in from the moment Angela Kane arrived. They were not allowed to the site for 4 days and Assad continued to shell the site heavier than he had been previously. I am well aware that evidence can be found even years after an attack which can prove a chemical agent was used - as in Halabja for instance but that is not the point - shelling the site destroys and disperses and complicates the site obviously and keeping inspectors out by continuing to shell the area was clearly a tactic.... why would they do that? why not stop shelling, secure the site and ensure the UN guys get in there and prove you didn't do it?? makes no sense
Secure the site? You do realise the area is occupied by Jihadists, yes?
Also, you are obviously relying on fox news or something, because if you weren't, you would know that Syrian government gave permission and the UN sat in their hotel "analysing security". since then, america and its friends have done everything to stall and block the UN from guiding the discussion - anyoen can see this0 -
It's a war what are they gona say to the other side ok take a break lad's have a cup of tea the UN is here to have look ?0
-
I don't know.. I can see the congressional debate and vote being a close one. Obama has stopped the 'this isn't constitutional' critics now so can focus on the evidence and argument. He will differentiate this to be only about protecting global norms, protecting anti-chemical treaty and the ltd nature of the proposed strike.0
-
It's a war what are they gona say to the other side ok take a break lad's have a cup of tea the UN is here to have look ?
sort of yeah... the rebel side were the ones crying 'chemical attack' yeah? so why wouldn't they stop attacking the site if the gov forces pulled back to allow the UN in.
Can you support the UN guys 'not being blocked from the site' and 'sitting in their rooms'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Be like Nutella wrote: »sort of yeah... the rebel side were the ones crying 'chemical attack' yeah? so why wouldn't they stop attacking the site if the gov forces pulled back to allow the UN in.
Can you support the UN guys 'not being blocked from the site' and 'sitting in their rooms'?
No i dont suport any investigation being blocked at all in fact i expect a very proper one but i think an investigation may take longer then a week and should be impartial and i dont believe it has being properly investigated yet at all there are many conflicting sides and reports on the matter.
They would not stop i imagine because that kind of act would in the very least mean a retreat what are they going to do just stop fireing and defending themselves ?0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »I don't know.. I can see the congressional debate and vote being a close one. Obama has stopped the 'this isn't constitutional' critics now so can focus on the evidence and argument. He will differentiate this to be only about protecting global norms, protecting anti-chemical treaty and the ltd nature of the proposed strike.
He wil also argue the moral side "it is Americas duty" "We can not stand idly by while" etc As if they are the only people in this world with a conscience.
They need to know there is more to this world than simply haveing a big gun. They also need to respect that they are not they only military force in this world even if they produce by far most of its weapons.0 -
well in real terms the US is indescribably and vastly more powerful militarily than any nation on the planet and has the ability unlike other nations to act on its own and alter the course of events out there in the world using its brute military force in ways no other country can even come close to.
As an example:
lets take aircraft carriers which allow you to project power out in the world in ways nothing else does.
America has 10 on the ocean right now with 2 on the bench ready to rock and 3 under construction.
Russia?? has 1, none on the bench and none in production.
the US has 172 thousand troops out in the world in dozens of bases. Russia has none outside of Russia/Caucasus.
The US is THE nation with the stick. It relies on the continued order of international commerce and the relative stability of oil prices which doesn't care where oil or oil supply related trouble comes from!
America is deeply connected to the troubles in the middle east, economically and strategically and requires a comprehensive proactive middle east foreign policy whether neocons, isolationist republicans or politicians of any type want one or not and whether Dick Cheney and co lied to the world or not about Iraq.0 -
I disagree and some of your statements are simply untrue. If you had lived in the 80's you would have lived during the cold war when America and Russia were at loger heads and there was real threat and fear of nuclear war. Here is a model of one the ships that Russia is currently sending down to the med http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-moscow-cruiser-ship/696502 Now you tell me what do you think that could do ? It could probably wipe out Ireland in less than an half an hour ! I also think Russia produces by far most of the worlds rockets dont forget that they were the first nation to put a man into space.
Anyway i dislike the America militarily training and arming of other countries like Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. Which they spend billions on especially when it sends their own economy down the tube there are serious economic problems in America and all there military spending is definitely a contributing factor. And i dont think it makes the world a better or safer place.
In my oppinion the world simply does not need to become a police state and especially not an American led one and i dont think they offer peace or stability to anyone at all in fact i think they have been completly unsettleding everything for years.
Also even if they have the force to make an atack on Syria they simply do not have the legal right to do so. They have singed and are bound to the terms of the United Nations any act they make against UN law would be completely illegal ! So there is a much wider diplomatic issue !
let me ask do you think David Cameron will be re-elected after his current term ? I bet you he wont and it will be exactly over this. Unfortunately Obama will be around for another three and a half more years ! In which time i think he would do much better to focus on more domestic issues and fulfill some of his pre election promises.
By the way America helped Saddam Hussein in useing sarin gas against Iran in the 80's.
"In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: ».....
The US is THE nation with the stick. It relies on the continued order of international commerce and the relative stability of oil prices which doesn't care where oil or oil supply related trouble comes from!
America is deeply connected to the troubles in the middle east, economically and strategically and requires a comprehensive proactive middle east foreign policy whether neocons, isolationist republicans or politicians of any type want one or not and whether Dick Cheney and co lied to the world or not about Iraq.
America is not deeply connected - there is no reason for the US to strike. Syria is not an existential threat to the US, UK or any other NATO member.
.....and if stable oil prices and continued order in international commerce is the rationale for action then China rather than the US has greater imperative to act given their respective energy security statuses.
Also, if an attack is launched and it's ineffective (as it is highly likely to be) who benefits? Barring a lucky hit, Assad will continue in power only he'll have got one over on the US by making them look impotent, which would not be the worst image to be projecting when your main donors are Russia and Iran. Then what happens - another round, or successive rounds, of air strikes, all of which prove inconclusive?
Of course all that changes if a NATO member or Israel were to be attacked without warning by Syria.0 -
-
namloc1980 wrote: »According to Kerry and Hagel it is a threat. They've repeatedly said in the senate committee today.
I'm sure there is a threat on some minor level but what could Assad / Syria possibly do that threatens the US as a state or any of its institutions?0 -
I'm sure there is a threat on some minor level but what could Assad / Syria possibly do that threatens the US as a state or any of its institutions?
Chuck Hagel: As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to America's national security interests and those of our closest allies. The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. That risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, our partners and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.
Perhaps you should ask Hagel and Kerry that question? They seem convinced.0 -
Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/soldiers-protest-war-syria-facebook-article-1.1444535
Who America wants to militarily suport..
http://www.infowars.com/al-nusra-mercenaries-in-syria-slaughter-kurdish-women-and-children/
"Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-finds-sarin-gas-in-homes-of-suspected-syrian-islamists-may-report/53475230 -
Advertisement
-
namloc1980 wrote: »Chuck Hagel: As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to America's national security interests and those of our closest allies. The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. That risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends, our partners and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.
Perhaps you should ask Hagel and Kerry that question? They seem convinced.
I'm sure they are and I'm not doubting their bona fides - they are serious well informed people with a far greater understanding of what's happening than I have.
But to draw a parallel with a comparable situation, Rice and Powell were similarly persuasive about Iraq in the run up to Gulf War II, so it's not unknown for such people to get it wrong.
His final point is quite ambiguous - wouldn't striking Syria provide the very incentive for an organisation such as Hezbollah to strike at Israel or the US. Plus, if they really wanted to possess sarin wouldn't they just manufacture it (as the Aum Shinrikyo cult did) - the pre-cursors, technology and expertise are probably easier to obtain than stocks of the substance from a third party.
......and even if all that is rejected and you can in some way relate what is going on in Syria as a threat to some vital US national security interest- there still remains the point that nothing meaningful can be achieved by air or missile strikes alone - they might knock over a few buildings, but it won't have anything more than a temporary effect on the regime, and will likely be counter-productive as it will bolster support for Assad.0
Advertisement