Hans Blix: U.S. has “poor excuse” for Syria incursion now
Source: Salon.com
The indications are certainly in the direction of the use of chemical weapons. Also, the circumstantial evidence points to the Assad regime carrying out the use of such weapons.
However, since the Western powers have asked for United Nations inspections — and Syria has accepted and inspectors have been put in the field — we all should wait to see the report of the inspectors before action is taken.
As we’ve seen before, the political dynamics are running ahead of due process.
… If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/27/hans_blix_u_s_has_poor_excuse_for_syria_incursion_now/singleton/
I agree with Hans Blix "we all should wait to see the report of the inspectors before action is taken." This sounds too much like the rush into Iraq for me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)is still the SOS?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And the policy marches on...
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)marches on that Collin Powell might as well be SOS?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The policy is to reduce the independent nations of the middle east either to subservience to the United States (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Israel, and somewhat Iraq) or to drive them into chaos and irrelevance (Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and our intentions towards Iran). we cannot allow independent states to control the resources we desire, is the bottom line of this policy.
Colin Powell might as well have been Madeline Albright. or Henry Kissinger. or Dean Rusk, for that matter. Who's "in charge" doesn't really alter policy.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)such hyperbole....you make me laugh...that is not happening under Obama.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Same as it's been happening under every US president since Truman, Dennis. As I said, whoever's "in charge" doesn't really matter, the policy remains. Some of the details of execution might be different; Eisenhower favored coups, Clinton favored diplomatic and economic pressures, Dubya favored ground invasions, and Obama apparently favors air assaults. But the objective remains the same.
if you have a better explanation for the last 67 years of US involvement in the Middle East, I'd enjoy hearing it.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #53)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
David__77
(23,369 posts)But it's not too late. The US has not initiated a war of aggression yet. But if Kerry is party to such a criminal act, then the comparison might, if anything, be too kind.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)right there.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It appears that the intercepts show the Syrian Defense Minister was more than a little upset with the unit commander. If it was an unauthorized release, that's the Gen. Ripper scenario in Dr. Strangelove, and that's not the kind of war Obama wants to get into.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I swear he did...
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)
christx30
(6,241 posts)Kim Jong Il just finished talking to some terrorists when Hans Blix came in and demanded inspections under threat of a strongly worded letter. Kim countered by pulling a lever, dropping Blix through a trap door into the shark tank, where he was ripped in half.
blm
(113,042 posts)the intel against Iraq was cooked, and Kerry and Obama have been RESISTING the use of military force for years, and, in Kerry's case, personally intervening in order to press diplomatic solutions for 8 years?
How is it that so many here can't remember 2005 and Bush's intention to invade Syria and the Clintons and Lieberman wing of the Dem party who were FULLY behind Bush on that objective?
There was ONE person who took it upon himself to go to Syria on his own and press for diplomatic alternatives, and then continued to do so until Arab Spring turned Assad into a more dangerous, and now paranoid leader?
I hope military force can still be avoided, but, I am not going to let anyone inaccurately claim that Obama and Kerry are following the exact same push for war as Bush when there is an abundance of proof that they are NOT.
Cha
(297,137 posts)it's just a lazy way to complain about Syria.
Thanks for giving us some actual history on events, blm.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Now please explains why it will be any different if Obama doesn't wait for the UN to complete its work before attacking Syria. That's what this article is about. Read the article.
Response to totodeinhere (Reply #18)
Post removed
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)Facts still mean something at DU...your post proved it 
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)The OP is about his comments. He wants evidence before military action. So do I. I agree that the two situations are different, but both Powell and Kerry have been shown evidence to convinve them its time to act. Evidence for Powell was invented out of whole cloth. What is the evidence here it was definitively Assad's forces? It hasn't been presented yet.
Without it, we get the likes of the CNBC think-tank talking head who said earlier today it was Assad's son tripping and falling on the Chemical Weapons Button. They've had half a dozen experts spewing similar stuff.
I don't know the truth, but I am suspicious when the President draws a red line, and a short time later it gets crossed in order to kill innocents, not enemies. Any possibility the powers behind those you refer to from 2005 found in sarin use the tool they needed to get this President to follow their wishes?
The OP said 'it sounds too much like', not 'they are following the exact same push.'
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Total straw-man argument, needed to be slapped down.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)blm
(113,042 posts)war sounds too much like what Bush did in Iraq?
Many on this board are WILLFULLY mischaracterizing what is going down now because they refuse to acknowledge the last 8 years of AVOIDING war in Syria.
There is the added irony of Clinton supporters attacking Obama and Kerry for this 'rush to war' when she was one of the war hawks that Obama and Kerry were preventing from having the war in Syria these hawks had wanted since 2005.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)... from a couple months ago. I'm waiting for the presentation of evidence.
I'm willfully ignoring nothing, but nice to see more lumping of those that disagree into some invented trash heap. You are looking for a fight with who exactly? Clinton-supporting Obama-bashers? Go for it, just leave me out of it.
blm
(113,042 posts)There has been no push to war. The hawks have tried several times to force it in the past year and he resisted because he wanted absolute evidence. He must have it now. He and Kerry would NOT be saying so if there wasn't. No one in this country worked harder than Kerry to PREVENT war in Syria from the earliest push by the hawks in 2005.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)You are making things up. There has been a push to war. You know how I know? The past 48 hours have been a push to war! If you haven't been paying attention, every news outlet is expecting cruise missiles on Thursday.
I have always respected John Kerry. Personally I thought he should have walked across the stage and bitch-slapped W when he challenged Jr to distance himself from SwiftBoaters and W refused. At least he should have shamed him over the Texas Air Guard admittance. Perhaps too nice a guy for Rovian politics of 2004, but someone I've respected since I learned of his speech to Congress over the stupidity of Vietnam.
I can't explain his change of heart on this issue, but his wasn't a reasoned, rational response yesterday. He must have it? That's your rationale? At least Powell sat in front of the UN and put on a puppet show. If Kerry has it, where is it? Without it, just stop, because you don't know, you just admitted it.
blm
(113,042 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)
and am quite familiar with the last 8 year push for war in Syria and that Kerry has been the main person trying to PREVENT it. FOR EIGHT EFFING YEARS.
Since YOU never knew that, perhaps you should look into it before you claim it's merely made up.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)You know everything, including what I know and don't know. Fascinating, the omniscience. You ought to be making billions at the track, not trying to convince lowly mortals such as myself on a message board.
You are claiming as fact something you nor I know, namely that Kerry has irrefutable proof. That means making it up. You are looking at 8 years, and ignoring the past few days, or at least taking them at face value. That's your prerogative, not fact.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and the observations of cycles does not mean that everything is a direct 1:1 correspondence every time.
So what if 8 years has gone by with Syria. We went a decade between the Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 before ousting Saddam Hussein.
What is apparent is the thematic elements. There are enough for those who observe patterns to say, stop, wait a minute, this looks eerily like another run up to another bogus war - WMD's, 'against their own people', a brutal dictator, liberating the people of country X, needing but not getting full UN support, bellicose & hyper-emotional speech making, proof that may or may not yet be verified as proof, etc.
blm
(113,042 posts)preventing war in Syria the last 8 years. That person's view matters because it is the MOST informed view on many more levels than are being observed by his detractors here.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and desires as those who supported Bush and the Iraq War. There was no question then to those supporters that the Bush Administration was being honest.
Obama's views may not be the most informed. He may be given information that supports his views. He may be ignoring information that does not support his views on the matter.
blm
(113,042 posts)the war hawks when he deliberately took it upon himself to PREVENT the war in Syria the hawks wanted in 2005 and continued to keep a war-preventing relationship with Assad nurtured until it became apparent that Arab Spring was pushing Assad to become increasingly paranoid and unhinged. Granted, he had some reason to be given what was occurring elsewhere. However that shouldn't excuse the extent of suffering in that region caused by his miscalculations.
Even a little research shows that Kerry personally put himself between Assad and the hawks, and was constantly mocked for it in press reports.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html
TM99
(8,352 posts)The GOP's attacks on him as a flip-flopper were bogus. However, he does appear incongruent.
He fought in Vietnam and then was vehemently opposed to it. Bravo!
He was very much for the War in Iraq and then was against it and then didn't regret his decision.
He was against war with Syria, and now he is for it.
That is confusing, and therefore, it is difficult to trust him just as it is with Obama on this matter. SOS' like their jobs. They rarely resign in protest against the administrations wishes. If he is against war, then let's hear it from him. His speech the other day was as ridiculous as Powells and as emotional as any manipulative drumming up for war.
The facts are not in, and yet the table is being set.
blm
(113,042 posts)He was NEVER for the war in Iraq. He stated clearly when he voted for the resolution that it was based on getting weapon inspectors in and that he would stand against any invasion of Iraq if the weapon inspections proved force was not needed. He was the ONLY one of the aye votes for the IWR to publicly stand with the weapon inspectors and say that Bush should NOT invade based on the weapon inspection reports.
Just because corpmedia got so much of that narrative wrong, doesn't mean that attentive citizens should follow their spin.
He's not saying he's FOR war in Syria. He's saying he's for some use of force against Assad's interests. In fact, there isn't anyone in this nation who worked harder and more pointedly to PREVENT war in Syria the last 8 years. Gee - ya suppose he may know something a bit more about Assad and his current state of mind than you?
TM99
(8,352 posts)With that said, I am sorry but Kerry has for more than 25 years been incredibly inconsistent in his actual statements both in speeches and in votes on the entire Middle East situation including most important the Wars in Iraq.
These are his actual words - facts as you point out. You can bitch about the media and the spin, and yet you can not contradict that he said the following:
Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq
Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote."
Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress "no further say" on the war.
In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.
In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply "to threaten" the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.
Read Part One of our series:
President Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops
If I Knew Then What I Know Now…
"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."
But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: "[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry's nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.
In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the "right decision" though he would have "preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity."
But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."
The $87 Billion Vote
In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush's tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-646435.html
Now don't get me wrong entirely, I am not just attacking Kerry. He is no different than just about every politician today no matter whether they have a D or an R after their name. They worry about votes, money, and positioning. They will say one thing on the campaign trail and do another once elected.
So once more, I do not have to be an 'expert' on the Middle East to question the veracity of my elected politicians' statements. I, and the rest of the American people, have been lied to so many times for the last few decades, that personally, I am very wary of them now. War or simply 'force' is just disingenuous semantic games.
blm
(113,042 posts)go to war and would need a resolution to do so, too. That resolution did not invade Iraq, Bush invaded despite the weapon inspectors reporting back that force was not needed. But media ran with Rove's narrative, ignoring details.
The 87 billion was NOT a flip-flop. almost EVERY vote is a vote for before you vote against, yet talking heads and GOP played it as if they never heard of it because of the way it SOUNDED in that clip and they ran with the LIE. He voted FOR a bill where the 87billion to fund was PAID FOR by canceling the tax cuts to the wealthiest. That didn't pass. He then voted AGAINST the bill for 87billion because it was NOT PAID FOR. That happens in nearly every single vote by Congress. You vote either for or against the first version of a bill before you vote against or for the alternative that has been submitted. People CHOOSE to play dumb. I do NOT. Kerry was forced to accept that it was seen as inarticulate. Shame on all those who ran with the LIE that it was a flip-flop. The dumbing down of America assured that people would fall for that BS.
Again - the NARRATIVE was written by those intent on keeping a NARRATIVE they were comfortable with.
Corporate media did not want Kerry in the WH - and their undermining of his campaign was apparent to anyone watching.
Why was it important to corpmedia to keep Bush in office for a second term.....to get what he promised THEM. THIS is why Kerry's candidacy was declared dead for months, thereby drying up Kerry's fundraising.Why the media focused on rivals and downplayed the truth about Kerry's support on the ground in Iowa. Kerry's big Iowa win PROVED the media was lying to us for months.
Why did they choose to ignore Kerry's consistent position on Iraq and weapon inspections? Why did they refuse to air Kerry's speech to the Firefighters Convention where he attacked the Swiftliars directly and challenged Bush to debate their services instead of hiding behind the lies of the Swifts?
Because media owners did NOT want Kerry in the WH:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval
Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.
In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:
"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.
"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."
Little Star
(17,055 posts)now they are not letting them finish their job in Syria. Why the rush to war? Why?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)
blm
(113,042 posts).
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Same thing.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)I'll see if I can find the article later. Gotta go eat supper right now.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)more at link: http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/energy/syrias-fate-has-key-implications-for-its-oil-rich-neighbours
blm
(113,042 posts).
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and has a port on the Mediterranean. Also, Syria has flatter terrain than farther east in the Caucasus region, making construction and operation of a pipeline to Europe easier.
paleotn
(17,911 posts)....as usual, just follow the money. The US accidentally kills a few innocent Syrians in the process of our RIGHTEOUS attack on that mean ole nasty Bashar Assad, ooops. Oh well. And never mind the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who were gassed pre-Desert Storm, with our government's full knowledge before, during and after. WE'RE DOING THE "RIGHT" THING! And also, never mind that many of the rebels like to behead people for the cameras in their spare time and have strong ties with Al Qaeda.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)That, in the end, involves China.
Edit: ( and, of course, all that $$$$$$$$$$MIC$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MIC$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MIC )
(And (what should be) stupid stuff in this day and age like tribalism, and such).
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)Because innocent children are being killed as we post to DU from the comfort of our homes! In Iraq there was no rush to do anything whatsoever.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)US sanctions. We were told that the sanctions would be ended as soon as the very quick, so-quick- you-will-hardly-notice-it war had started. We were also told that Saddam Hussein had used gas attack on Kurdish people. (If he had, Then Don Rumsfeld, same Rumsfeld that wanted war agaisnt Iraq) had sold him the gas!)
Moral of story: never believe authorities in the USA when they say their for-profit war is going to benefit the children of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)By Bush...in case you didn't notice Bush is not the president now. Wake up!
I don't think any evidence will ever make you believe war is needed because you can never believe authorities in the USA....sad.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)As events surrounding Syria unfold, I now totally understand why Obama decided not to prosecute the Bush Administration staff for their bringing us into an unnecessary war.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)u understand everything...better than Obama. haha!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Which explains why he is a well paid puppet, about to retire in three more years, and will never have to worry about his financial situation from here on out.
Meanwhile I get .0000 cents per post.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then it would cease its incredibly messy drone campaigns, which have been providing a steady stream of child casualties since 2009.
Intervention in Syria is about geopolitics and nothing else.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Just because there is 'no evidence of any alternative' is not evidence that the Syrian Govt. committed the act.
Read here & then click the link in bigtree's OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3543786
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)hug the earth
(24 posts)Just pull the inspectors out and declare certainty. Now where have I heard that one before.
And even if we find that Assad did use the chemical weapons, I am afraid we are in no position to call the kettle black after our own war crimes. We need to get our own house in order.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)While the people going into Turkey may only be refugees, there is more to it than that. Some may enter to overturn the government of Turkey for their faction.
But I think this is being done at the behest of Turkey, definitely not the USA, which has been dragged into it. Turkey has been complaining long and loud about what Assad has been doing because it directly affects them.
Question:
Which nation directly adjoining Iraq had such a grievance, and was a member of an alliance that was not hastily put together, but has been pledged to support each other for over half a century?
Answer: None.
Iraq and Syria are not the same and the move against them is not the same. Unless we want to call Obama following the PNAC model, which he has not done.
Question:
Who did not want the USA to leave Iraq and wanted the USA to follow that model and Bomb Iran?
Hint:
Ran for president with Caribou Barbie in 2008. And still wants to run for president in 2016. And wants us to go into Syria and has already picked his favorite rebel group to replace Assad.
Who does not want a war with Iran and is using every other means to settle down concerns about Iran, and avoided calls for going into Syria for years, and is has continually gotten flak from the RW about it?
Answer:
Obama.
If Turkey was not in NATO, this might not be happening. But I don't blame them for wanting this cancer to spread in the region, either.
Syria's Assad has had a terrible reputation for repressing his people for decades, this is not news to anyone. What his reasons for acting the way he has in the past are, I don't know but some Lebanese still hold him responsible for the turmoil in their nation, saying he used proxies to invade Lebanon to create a 'Greater Syria.'
Russia has not curtailed Assad, instead they are leaving NATO to play the bad guy for their own reasons. They could have coerced Assad to do something else years ago, but didn't want to do so because they, too, have groups within their own borders that want to do harm them.
P. S. Agreed totally with your post.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Then what Hans Blix says is very prudent. Very prudent.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...a poor excuse is more than sufficient for these modern-day barbarians.
K&R
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Surely a Democratic President will not do this? Please convince me he will not.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)paleotn
(17,911 posts).... A Democratic President has, can and probably will again. It's like there's some kind of "Hawk" pathogen infesting the White House water system. Even Gandhi would be bombing the crap out of people, after a couple years as President.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We really screwed the pooch that time. Our whole response was just going to be a few "surgical air strikes" to "punish" the North Vietnamese. That is a very scary parallel you have set up, my friend.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)Obama is taking his time going over all his options..has been doing this for years. Many in the GOP have been pushing him for war ith Syria for many years now. Bush made his decision hist first day in office. WTF are you talking about. How do you know Obama is not going to provide more evidence than what has already been reported and shown on the news? You all just assume the worse about everything. Well if Bush did it, then Obama is doing the same thing without knowing the facts.
This place is just flat out crazy. All hyperspeculation. Might as well change the name of the website to WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT/OBAMA DOES IS WRONG AND DISHONEST UNDERGROUND.COM You guys sound like hardcore libertarians.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Does that make you feel better Another Liberal? Some, but not enough?
Actually, it is a quite a bit different than Iraq. Bush had the troops in place and summer was fast approaching. Logistically, delay was not an option. Blix probably made a mistake by asking for an extension to tie up loose ends regarding the paperwork on the destruction of chemical weapons. In hindsight he should have just filed his report that Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs but put in a footnote about documentation issues with the destruction of chemical weapons, 90% of which had been destroyed by the prior UN weapons inspection team. Would Bush still have gone in?
It is different also in that all that is being put on the table now is about 3 days of bombardment with cruise missiles. But what will be the response to that? That is where it gets scary....
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and didn't get a pony
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)dennis4868
(9,774 posts)being gassed by your people I think you would want help from the world to make it stop. This is no joke.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)dennis4868
(9,774 posts)and my son is in the army...thank you. My grandson will soon join as well.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Mostly by that fact Iran supplies the oil for Turkey, Greece and indirectly Cyprus. Without at least two of those three countries, where will the US base its attack from? Israel? You got to be kidding, no Middle Eastern country for support any attack on any Middle Eastern Country based out of Israel (Except for Israel).
Egypt is marginal distance and is marginally stable, so it is out. Those countries North of Iran and Turkey, are either dependent on Iranian oil and Natural Gas, or dependent on Russian Oil or Natural gas (or basically under the control of Russia). Thus there are out as potential bases for a US attack. Air bases in Saudi Arabia are set up to control the Persian Gulf or defend from a deep penetration raid from Iraq or Israel, thus to far from Syria to be more the marginal helpful. Jordan has poor lines of Communications to the Persian Gulf, and thus to far from any port to get enough supplies to support an air campaign against Syria.
Iraq, in its heart wants to support Iran not the US (Which is one of the reason Jordan has poor lines of Communications, the best line is right through Iraq). Thus it is an oil exporter (once again) but will NOT agree to any US attack based out of Iraq. Now the Sunni in Western Iraq (but East of Kurdistan) would support such an attack, but the Shiites control the Iraqi Government and they support Iran.
Cyprus has the ability to prevent any attack from the British bases on Cyrus. If I remember the treaty as to those bases Cyprus has no legal grounds to do so, but has sufficient ground forces (and artillery) to do so, for at least a short time period.
Libya is just a little to far, but also unstable at the present time, for any air attack to come from Libya, Italy is just to far away (Air refueling could permit operations from Italy, but such air refueling not only add to the cost, but the number of planes and pilots involved AND the time those pilots have per mission).
Now, the US has Carriers. The problem with the Carriers is the ability to keep flying the required number of missions day after day. Carriers are small and sooner or later you get to a point you have to slow down the attack rate.
As to Syria itself. The coastal areas are the most pro-Assad areas of Syria. Hitting them would be meaningless. If there are any bases or supply points in those areas, hitting them makes sense, but once those are hit, the rest of the area will still support Assad. Thus any air attack to support the rebels, will have to fly over the Anti-Lebanon mountains and to aid the attack of the rebels. With modern communications such attacks could be warned by observers in the Anti-Lebanon mountains and sent to Assad forces, with enough warning to prepare for the attack.
Thus, the existence of what the Military calls "Cover", the ability to maneuver with wheeled vehicles, and the lack of increased maneuver by tracked vehicles (we are talking about mountains here), together with a hostile population along the coast, you have an area no were near as easy to bring victory by Air Power as was the case in Libya.
All told, to many problems with an attack on Syria, so I suspect all the talk, is just that talk to keep our allies (and more importantly, our oil suppliers) happy.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)
The movement of planes to Cyprus, seems to be an annual move to provide additional flight time for the pilots. i.e. it is something done every year.
Rain occurs mainly in winter, with summer being generally dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Cyprus
Between June and October, you can go months without rain in Cyprus. Perfect flying conditions. This starts to end in October. Rainfall starts in October, peaks at about 9-10 days in January, and falls back to near zero in June.
As to elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, I see no place the US or NATO can base planes. Carriers are an option, but right now the only Carrier the US has in the Mediterranean is the USS Harry S Truman. When the US attacked Iraq we had four carriers in the Persian Gulf, not just one. At least one other Carrier will have to be moved into the Mediterranean, and given the air power needed at least four to overwhelm Syrian air defenses.
US Carrier locations:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=217811069988644259786.000489a6f745d8c886913
Now, the recent move of British Planes to Cyprus is tied in with Britain's "Operation Cougar 13" which started in the middle of August. It is a maneuver through the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. It is long planned, for such maneuvers MUST be announced publicly by international treaty months before they are held. The Royal Navy has done this twice before in 2011 and 2012 and due to the Royal Navy's long term plan seems to have become an annual event:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-set-for-cougar-13
Presently the Royal Navy is off the Adriatic Coast in operation "Albanian Lion" which is being held with Albania: "Albanian Lion" is part of "Operation Cougar".
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/August/23/130823-Royal-Marines-Albanian-Lion
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/Operations/Current-Operations/Operational-Deployments/Ex-Cougar-13
This is the third time in the last three years that the British Navy has done this type of exercise, sailing from Britain to the Persian Gulf via the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal.
This operation appears to be connected with French Units (France right now has a Aircraft Carrier, Britain does NOT except for two helicopter carriers, one of which is a 1980 era carrier converted to Helicopter use and scheduled to be mothballed or scraped next year).
Given the nature of these maneuvers and the fact only ONE US Carrier is in the Mediterranean sea at the present time, I see these as part of the same set of maneuvers NOT a plan to attack Syria. The Royal Navy did deploy its one Carrier, but it is carrying only Helicopters and thus without the ability to project power INLAND (it can project power on the high seas AND on the coast, but not inland, this is important for the fighting in Syria is well inland NOT along the coast).
Greece and Turkey (and thus Cyprus which has no refinery itself, import refined oil from Greece and Italy instead) gets their oil from Iran. Thus neither wants to cut off its oil supply. Turkey may want Assad out of power, but it is NOT going to risk its fuel supply to topple him. Iraq has already said NO to the use of its bases to attack Syria (the Shiite leadership of Iraq supports Iran not the US and that was the case even when the US occupied Iraq). Saudi Arabia Air bases are to far south. Jordan's air bases are close, but supplies come via Israel OR Iraq and Iraq will say NO and Jordan is NOT that trusted by Israel.
Israel has the Air Bases and support elements to support a US Attack on Syria. The problem with Israel, is Assad will point out the Israeli connection and thus force every middle eastern country to come to Assad's aid, even if the rulers of those middle eastern countries hate Assad's guts. Even the middle east rulers who are trying to topple Assad, if Israel is involved, will have to go through at least the motion of defending Assad from Israel. Thus Israel is out as where US forces can be based to attack Assad.
Egypt and Libya are to unstable. Thus Italy is the nearest Air Base except for the two British bases on Cyprus. Cyprus can veto the use of those two bases, simply by the fact it has enough artillery to put those bases out of operations when ever its wants to (through not for any long time period, but long enough to make the use of those bases marginal).
The nearest US Air base is in Sicily, which is over 2400 KM from Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Air_Station_Sigonella
F-15 Combat Radius is just under 2000 KM, Ferry range is 5500 KM. The difference is that Combat range is how far the plane can fly and return with a normal combat load. The Ferry range is how far it can go with fuel to get to where it is going. Thus from Sicily the F-15 will have to refuel at least once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
The F-16 has considerable shorter range, but with in flight refueling can get to Syria from Sicily.
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,280 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,220 km) with drop tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
F-18 is about the same as the F-16:
Combat radius: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-air mission
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet
Range of the A-10 is less then half the F-16 and F-18, but still can get to target with in flight refueling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
Now, the B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers can clearly get to Syria, but they are all more area bomber then the pin point bombing needed. Thus they can join in any attack on Syria, but sooner or later you need the Fighter Bombers and attack planes and that is the big restriction.
Thus, unless Cyprus does NOT object to the use of those British Bases on Cyprus, the distance is borderline. Can be done, but at a high cost for you will have to send up a tanker for each plane on each mission. The more you are willing to re-fuel in flight, the more munitions can be carried. All of the above planes can all be loaded down with the maximum weapons load, but to take off fuel will have to be cut to get those planes in flight with maximum weapon load. Once in flight, they can be fully fueled (once in the air, less power is needed to maintain speed to the target, thus it is common practice to load planes to the max with weapons, but fuel them just enough to get air borne, then re-fuel them again in flight to the target).
I mention the above, for it shows how complex an attack on Syria would be. Libya was half the distance from Sicily, thus less refueling was needed, and quicker response was possible to request for air support from the ground. Once Qaddafi retreated to southern Libya, he was outside the range of the planes based in Sicily (Thus he was captured by a ground unit operating in the desert that attack his convoy and captured Qaddafi and shot Qaddafi).
The more I look into the situation in Syria, I see obstacles to any attack. Can NATO and the US attack? Yes, but these obstacles are enough to reduce such an attack to be a pale reflection of what NATO did in Libya (This can be seen when Qaddafi's forces retreated to Tripoli, as Qaddafi's forces retreated, those forces moved closer and closer to Sicily, making it easier for NATO planes to bomb what ever defensive positions Qaddafi's forces set up. Once Qaddafi moved south, the situation changed as he slowly moved out of range and response time from Sicily (Through by that time, his forces were so weak he was an easy target to take on by the forces that captured and killed him).
Syria is NOT Libya, it is a much more difficult target that will take more forces then presently available to attack Syria. Thus one of the reason for the UN investigation of these Chemical Attacks is to give time for NATO and the US to gets it forces in order to launch such at attack, but I see it taking at least another month to everyone on board, including the US Military, who has objection if and when the US has two or four carriers off the coast of Syria, one question for example what is the long term goal? Syria without Iraq is almost useless, but the US has lost Iraq to Iran for the first choice of the Shiites of Iraq is Iran. Does the US invade Iraq again, and this time make sure the Sunnis get control? i.e. put someone like Saddam back ion charge of Iraq, as long as he stays loyal to the US.
Thus I think Obama is under pressure from the Right Wing to attack Syria, for that is part of they plan to control world wide oil. The problem is that plan also requires Iraq to be loyal to the US (and it is not) and then to take over the oil and natural gas reserves of Iran (Which the US can not without support of Iraq and ACTIVE neutrality by Russia and China).
By what I mean "Active" Neutrality, is that neither country does anything that undermines US attack on Iran (i.e. Russia does not start on oil embargo, along with Iraq and Venezuela) or China sends ships through the various channels between the main islands of Japan.
Sorry, every time I look at Syria and does any type of basic research on Syria, it comes back NO ATTACK for the costs to even do a minor attack is just to high. Worse, it will open the US up to an Oil Embargo, that the US can NOT stop (one lead by Russia, Iran and Venezuela and supported by the Shiites of Iraq). Such an oil embargo will hurt all four countries, but will hurt the US worse for we are more dependent on oil, then those countries are on the US Dollar.
On the other hand Obama appears to be surrounded by people who still look at controlling oil as the key to world Domination. They want to control oil and Iraq, Iran and Venezuela are the weak links in any attempt to undermine US control. This is their dream, they dogma, that it should have died when the US withdrew from Iraq (and how the US withdrew from Iraq) does not even seem to have cross those people's minds. Thus Obama's talking points, to keep that dogma alive even through any attack on Syria is doomed to failure.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Considering that US is willing to use force without UNSC approval, it's even more important, imperative, to let the UN chem team finish its work
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They might find out it WASN'T Assad, and then we'd have to scrap our little adventure...
Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)Clear Blue Sky
(2,156 posts)
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I mean these MIC/corporate lapdogs are salivating over the prospect of bombs and cruise missiles lighting up the night in Syria.
Hey, that's must see TV, no? And they got 24 hours to fill, 7 days a week! USA! USA! USA!
24/7, you betcha!
area51
(11,905 posts)all over again. 
cstanleytech
(26,281 posts)and getting things into place and ready which is only prudent.
Maybe they will do a no fly zone or maybe they will just hit some key points to make another chemical attack by whoever committed it more difficult, there are alot options that the president has.