Syria-Are we about to make a catastrophically stupid mistake?

Page 1 of 100 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1498
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    156,509
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    30

    Default Syria-Are we about to make a catastrophically stupid mistake?

    As the war drums pound longer and louder many of us sit here wondering what Obama's next move is going to be and what it will mean for "We The People".

    Having spent a lot of time in the region I was sitting back pondering on how our prior engagements have gone and what Syria's capabilities are.

    We have ships moving into position now and they are there almost certainly to launch missile strikes against Assad's air force, munitions depots, and likely their command and control particularly air defense radar and communications facilities.

    Syria has some of the most advanced Russian weaponry available including supersonic anti-ship missiles quite capable of seriously damaging or even sinking those ships.

    Their land based supersonic cruise missiles have limited range, but the same missiles can also be launched at long range from shore since they can be delivered by air or sea.

    They also have some long range ballistic anti ship missiles also supplied by the Russians.

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext...13920604001374

    Obama has built himself into a box with his rhetoric. If we do not deliver on his previous threats with respect to the use of chemical weapons he has pretty much zero credibility left on the world stage and the US will become a laughing stock around the world as a result of our projected weakness.

    If we do launch the almost certain strikes and Syria is successful in damaging or destroying any of our ships we must respond with even greater force.

    The Russians have warned us that if we do launch a strike against Assad's forces there will be grave consequences and their fleet will be behind ours.

    Our fleet will be stuck between the Russian fleet, Syria and flanked to the north by Turkey who is at best an unreliable ally when it comes to the ME and of course Lebanon to the South East.

    Should our fleet come under attack we have a very realistic possibility of needing the Israelis to respond with their air assets to help them out which would almost certainly result in a much broader war almost instantly.

    It is also not out of the realm of possibilities for the Israelis to take advantage of the situation and attack Iran's nuclear facilities while everyone else is focused on Syria.

    Once we start shooting, this could be the biggest international crisis since The Cuban Missile Crisis of the sixties during which we barely averted catastrophe.

    Barak Obama is no JFK so I am genuinely concerned about not where the shooting will start but where it will end and with what losses.

    There are hundreds of ways this can go very badly for the US and damned few where it can end well for US.

    I just do not have the same confidence in the current Administration I have had for most during my lifetime.
    NRA Certified Instructor, RSO, CRSO.
    Without the 1st & 2nd Amendments the rest of The Constitution is meaningless
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cruz!

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    23,057
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    I think that's likely the same response Gen Dempsey gave Kerry recently.

    Obama hasn't said much about his stupid 'red line' lately, leaving Kerry to carry this.
    “We’re a country that spends so much time tip-toeing around the cultures that choose to join us,” she said, “and not enough time defending the culture they’ve chosen to join.” Katie Hopkins

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    On the Surface of Earth
    Posts
    11,255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WildRose View Post
    As the war drums pound longer and louder many of us sit here wondering what Obama's next move is going to be and what it will mean for "We The People".

    Having spent a lot of time in the region I was sitting back pondering on how our prior engagements have gone and what Syria's capabilities are.

    We have ships moving into position now and they are there almost certainly to launch missile strikes against Assad's air force, munitions depots, and likely their command and control particularly air defense radar and communications facilities.

    Syria has some of the most advanced Russian weaponry available including supersonic anti-ship missiles quite capable of seriously damaging or even sinking those ships.

    Their land based supersonic cruise missiles have limited range, but the same missiles can also be launched at long range from shore since they can be delivered by air or sea.

    They also have some long range ballistic anti ship missiles also supplied by the Russians.

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext...13920604001374

    Obama has built himself into a box with his rhetoric. If we do not deliver on his previous threats with respect to the use of chemical weapons he has pretty much zero credibility left on the world stage and the US will become a laughing stock around the world as a result of our projected weakness.

    If we do launch the almost certain strikes and Syria is successful in damaging or destroying any of our ships we must respond with even greater force.

    The Russians have warned us that if we do launch a strike against Assad's forces there will be grave consequences and their fleet will be behind ours.

    Our fleet will be stuck between the Russian fleet, Syria and flanked to the north by Turkey who is at best an unreliable ally when it comes to the ME and of course Lebanon to the South East.

    Should our fleet come under attack we have a very realistic possibility of needing the Israelis to respond with their air assets to help them out which would almost certainly result in a much broader war almost instantly.

    It is also not out of the realm of possibilities for the Israelis to take advantage of the situation and attack Iran's nuclear facilities while everyone else is focused on Syria.

    Once we start shooting, this could be the biggest international crisis since The Cuban Missile Crisis of the sixties during which we barely averted catastrophe.

    Barak Obama is no JFK so I am genuinely concerned about not where the shooting will start but where it will end and with what losses.

    There are hundreds of ways this can go very badly for the US and damned few where it can end well for US.

    I just do not have the same confidence in the current Administration I have had for most during my lifetime.
    And yet because you and I both say we should stay out even those supposedly on the right side of the isle believe we're loons and whackjobs.

    You've got it right. Scarily so even.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bi-continental commuter
    Posts
    3,559
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    What did you expect? Obama always leads from behind. It's easier to run to safe ground if you are well behind the battle/clash of swords.
    My mate Jim Apple gets a lot of grief when he goes to France and people ask him his name.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    912
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Why have we not dumped this squarely in Russia and China's lap?
    Take this to the UN.
    Let Russia and China veto it.

    Throw up our hands and tell the world that clearly Russia and China condone the use of chemical weapons. We, as a nation, wish Russia and China Godspeed in resolving this crisis. Then supply humanitarian aide to whichever side is opposite the Russians and Chinese. Welcome to the 1970's again folks.

    Wash our hands of it.
    Complexity breeds instability. Instability breeds surprises. Surprises are always bad. Obamacare breeds complexity.

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK, Norwich.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    37,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Probably, yes. Syria has long been on the 'regime change' list, this is just a convenient opportunity for those inclined to do so.

    But this is no Cuban missile crisis.

    The UK parliament might even be voting on this one soon. It was looking unlikely that Cameron would get enough support, but that might have changed in the last couple days.

    I'm still hoping the chemical weapon usage in question was pesticides or low grade home-grown grade ****. At least that way there's an out.

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    6,617
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    It's apparent Barry has thrown John Kerry to the wolves. I'm not a fan of "medal tossing Johnnie" but give credit for his recent fact filled speech describing the Assad atrocities and chemical weapon use.
    The Russian/ Iranian alliance threaten retaliation if the US intervenes militarily, what about the Chinese Americans largest business partner?
    I think destroying Syria's ability to defend itself from air strikes and to fly would at least get their attention. "Boots on the ground"? No way, not again.
    Never underestimate the therapeutic power of driving fast and listening to very loud music.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbo
    Posts
    43,829
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    If chemical weapons were used, it's against the world at large so the response should come from the same. It should not be from us by ourselves. As far as Russia goes, now Mr President is a time to have Putin over for one of your "beer summits".

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK, Norwich.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    37,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smyrna View Post
    If chemical weapons were used, it's against the world at large so the response should come from the same. It should not be from us by ourselves. As far as Russia goes, now Mr President is a time to have Putin over for one of your "beer summits".
    I believe that's called "leading from behind" around these parts .

    But I would agree. Do nothing without a strong international consensus where various nations have to actually pony up. Most especially the middle-eastern countries. If that means waiting a good while longer, so be it.

    Realistically, there is no way there is not going to be an intervention at this point imo. So they could at least do it in a bi-lateral fashion, and not do it in the dumbest way possible as in Iraq.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #10

    Default

    Man, if only we'd had the same response here leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK, Norwich.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    37,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtInTheMiddle View Post
    Man, if only we'd had the same response here leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
    Bush was still going to go in either way. Might have been less of a disaster, but still a disaster.

    Doesn't matter which party you vote for atm, you get basically the same foreign policy when it comes to the middle-east. Old habits.

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    19,614
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Putin don't give a rats butt about the U.N. He has warned for the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria. The use of chemical weapons being the magic red line for some Euro and U.S. beating the drums to arm Rebels for a governmental change seems mighty suspect to anyone who knows the history of our reps wanting to get a foot in conflict.

    Russia will put boots on the ground and Iran will block the canal.
    The whole commie block China and Russia is prepared to take oil out of the region as fast as they can pump it. They have a vested interest in fighting a war over Syria.
    Get ten people into a room and for darn sure they will find one to hate.

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK, Norwich.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    37,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcatrun View Post
    Putin don't give a rats butt about the U.N. He has warned for the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria. The use of chemical weapons being the magic red line for some Euro and U.S. beating the drums to arm Rebels for a governmental change seems mighty suspect to anyone who knows the history of our reps wanting to get a foot in conflict.

    Russia will put boots on the ground and Iran will block the canal.
    The whole commie block China and Russia is prepared to take oil out of the region as fast as they can pump it. They have a vested interest in fighting a war over Syria.
    Not a foregone conclusion, particularly when **** like this is going on : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ops-Syria.html

    There's all kinds of different ways it could pan out at this point.

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackcatrun View Post
    Putin don't give a rats butt about the U.N. He has warned for the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria. The use of chemical weapons being the magic red line for some Euro and U.S. beating the drums to arm Rebels for a governmental change seems mighty suspect to anyone who knows the history of our reps wanting to get a foot in conflict.

    Russia will put boots on the ground and Iran will block the canal.
    The whole commie block China and Russia is prepared to take oil out of the region as fast as they can pump it. They have a vested interest in fighting a war over Syria.
    Interesting considering the abandoned the Naval base of 50+ years.

    Iran has no ability to block the Suez Canal, they have only a limited ability to interrupt the Straights leading into the Gulf.
    “this shows a commander who has lost his moral balance or watched too many Hollywood movies.” Gen Mattis on LTC(r) Alan West

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    UK, Norwich.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    37,242
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr BloodMoney View Post
    Interesting considering the abandoned the Naval base of 50+ years.

    Iran has no ability to block the Suez Canal, they have only a limited ability to interrupt the Straights leading into the Gulf.
    Don't underestimate the Iranian Navy, those speedboats are lethal!

  30. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •