Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
Perhaps the term success was a bit flippant on my part and particularly so from your vantage point, although how did the planners back then define their objectives and the management of the aftermath? Comparatively speaking i believe there was a greater attention to detail than where we find ourselves a decade and a half later.
Many of Monday's newspapers are running with the story that a missile strike from naval units could be launched in a matter of days. US and UK forces both being involved.
On a general note, I don't understand why Middle Eastern and North African conflicts should require western intervention, when far bloodier wars in sub-saharan and eastern Africa go largely ignored. It makes more sense to let Syrians sort out their own tortuous internecine dispute, than to lob random cruise missiles on them, in the hope that it will somehow make things better.
The objective was to demonstrate NATO's efficiency, get Yugoslavia to sign the capitulation, get rid of Europe's last socialist regime, and snatch 15% of its territory. So one could argue that the objectives were clear. I disagree on your point about the attention to detail. The lack of proper planning was apparent very soon into the bombing campaign, as NATO started running out of targets and resorted to bombing hospitals, bridges, factories etc. It looks as if it wasn't taken into consideration that there simply isn't that much stuff to be targeted in such a small country. As for the killed civilians, the media were hijacked by Jamie Shea's degrading and cynical 'collateral damage' mantra.
So there could be a similar type of objective for Syria, quick bombing campaign, remove Assad and install a (hopefully) US friendly regime. However, the questions is what if the US does not manage to either kill Assad or get him to surrender in a short time? What's the exit-plan?
Lob more bombs and missiles ?
The govt allowed the UN inspectors the next day after the attacks also while the us govt claimed that it was too late.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...ery-little-doubt-syria-used-chemical-weapons/
Engel on Meet the Press said Assad was furious with an assassination attempt against him and that rebel forces had stolen a missile. So he authorized the chemical weapons use. After this he bombed the area to destroy proof. The rebels have now received tons of weapons apparently and the US is considering missile launch.
Engel on Meet the Press said Assad was furious with an assassination attempt against him and that rebel forces had stolen a missile. So he authorized the chemical weapons use. After this he bombed the area to destroy proof. The rebels have now received tons of weapons apparently and the US is considering missile launch.
If Eliot Engel says so we can take his word for it, much like the rest of Obama's administration and their impartial narrative. The same Engel who vehemently voted in favour of going to war in Iraq eh? He clearly has an excellent track record.
I'm sure the administration is not acting on Engel's report. Get real. Anyone is more reliable than you lot who support a mass murderer who is carrying out ethnic cleaning. If the administration gets involved, it is because it has sufficient evidence. The majority of Americans do not want US involvement in Syria.
Yea, that type of evidence which led to the invasion of Iraq. Solid.
(Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya...)
Even somebody who supported mass murder and the use of chemical weapons themselves?
-------------------------------------------------
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
...
the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.
...
The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq's chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in a top secret document.
But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.
The CIA noted in one document that the use of nerve agent "could have a significant impact on Iran's human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy." Those tactics, which involved Iranian forces swarming against conventionally armed Iraqi positions, had proved decisive in some battles. In March 1984, the CIA reported that Iraq had "begun using nerve agents on the Al Basrah front and likely will be able to employ it in militarily significant quantities by late this fall."
The initial wave of Iraqi attacks, in 1983, used mustard agent. While generally not fatal, mustard causes severe blistering of the skin and mucus membranes, which can lead to potentially fatal infections, and can cause blindness and upper respiratory disease, while increasing the risk of cancer. The United States wasn't yet providing battlefield intelligence to Iraq when mustard was used. But it also did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light. Nor did the administration inform the United Nations. The CIA determined that Iran had the capability to bomb the weapons assembly facilities, if only it could find them. The CIA believed it knew the locations.
...
The situation changed in 1987. CIA reconnaissance satellites picked up clear indications that the Iranians were concentrating large numbers of troops and equipment east of the city of Basrah, according to Francona, who was then serving with the Defense Intelligence Agency. What concerned DIA analysts the most was that the satellite imagery showed that the Iranians had discovered a gaping hole in the Iraqi lines southeast of Basrah. The seam had opened up at the junction between the Iraqi III Corps, deployed east of the city, and the Iraqi VII Corps, which was deployed to the southeast of the city in and around the hotly contested Fao Peninsula.
The satellites detected Iranian engineering and bridging units being secretly moved to deployment areas opposite the gap in the Iraqi lines, indicating that this was going to be where the main force of the annual Iranian spring offensive was going to fall, Francona said.
In late 1987, the DIA analysts in Francona's shop in Washington wrote a Top Secret Codeword report partially entitled "At The Gates of Basrah," warning that the Iranian 1988 spring offensive was going to be bigger than all previous spring offensives, and this offensive stood a very good chance of breaking through the Iraqi lines and capturing Basrah. The report warned that if Basrah fell, the Iraqi military would collapse and Iran would win the war.
President Reagan read the report and, according to Francona, wrote a note in the margin addressed to Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci: "An Iranian victory is unacceptable."
Subsequently, a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as "targeting packages" suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.
The sarin attacks then followed.
The nerve agent causes dizziness, respiratory distress, and muscle convulsions, and can lead to death. CIA analysts could not precisely determine the Iranian casualty figures because they lacked access to Iranian officials and documents. But the agency gauged the number of dead as somewhere between "hundreds" and "thousands" in each of the four cases where chemical weapons were used prior to a military offensive. According to the CIA, two-thirds of all chemical weapons ever used by Iraq during its war with Iran were fired or dropped in the last 18 months of the war.
By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein's military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.
A month later, the Iraqis used aerial bombs and artillery shells filled with sarin against Iranian troop concentrations on the Fao Peninsula southeast of Basrah, helping the Iraqi forces win a major victory and recapture the entire peninsula. The success of the Fao Peninsula offensive also prevented the Iranians from launching their much-anticipated offensive to capture Basrah. According to Francona, Washington was very pleased with the result because the Iranians never got a chance to launch their offensive.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...rica_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,2
The original documents are published on page 4.
Indeed.
thanks for finally admitting you support a mass murderer.
Your sanctimonious drivel is getting tiresome, trying rebuking with compelling and impartial evidence instead of hysterically incriminating others as endorsers of genocide, murder, kitten-stabbing and whatever heinous crime you associate us with.
do you or do you not support Assad and all his actions?
EDIT: just because you do not agree with evidence that is posted does not make it untrue.
Depends as to what you define as 'his actions'. To which I'd imagine you'd incriminate as being the murder of thousands of Syrians. The trouble is its not as simple as that.
Do I support the army in their war against the FSA? Yes, the FSA are an AQ-infested element and I think it'd benefit the Syrian people if they were defeated.
Do I prefer Assad over the alternative? Yes, I have no personal loyalty to Assad nor do I care for his family, but I'd much rather prefer his secular regime over the macabre alternative.
I could say the same about the evidence posted contradicting yours. See what the problem is now?
finally a reasonable reply.
The Assad family have been in control of Syria for decades. they could have addressed the concerns of the rebels...when they were just groups who voiced their concern. Instead Assad used force. He caused this.I suspect because his sect were the minority and he was afraid to hand over power to groups who were in the majority. Its simply an action of a despot. He has no high principal. He just wants to retain power...and is willing to destroy his country to do it. I am not saying the rebels all have the right to kill with impunity. There are moderates and extremists among them. No outside power is going to sort the mess. Syrians will have to do that...and I think it is going to take a damn long time.
Personally I would prefer a secular government too. But realistically no one other than Assad's followers will be able to trust one that is led by him. It really is too late for him. So the best solution is for him to step aside instead of continuing with this war that no one can really win.
Finally, we're getting somewhere.
You mention Assad having needed to address the 'concerns of the rebels'. What do you understand these concerns to be? And you claim that he is a minority dictator (which is true ethnically speaking), but how would you respond to this notion of most Syrians preferring he stay in power instead of the rebels? (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda)
question for you Syrian experts. Do you lot think that the majority of Syrians would be able to come together under a secular government that is not headed by Assad? or would it have everything to do with what sect the leader belonged to?
Or are fundamentalists in the majority?
Or are fundamentalists in the majority?
please look at my post above. think I am exploring this further.
EDIT: do you still think after all the carnage there is still hope for an Assad led government?
just read the article. It is Jan 2012 and the majority that want Assad to stay only do so out of fear of civil war breaking out. Not that they all agree with his rule. The fact remains that he and his father had absolute power. Probably the very reason for what we now see. It really is an indictment of his rule.
Syrian Kurdish leader says Assad not to blame for attack
(Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be "so stupid" as to use chemical weapons close to Damascus, the leader of the country's largest Kurdish group said.
Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), said he doubted the Syrian president would resort to using such weapons when he felt he had the upper hand in the country's civil war.
He suggested last Wednesday's attack, which the opposition says was carried out by government forces and killed hundreds of people, was aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction. Assad has denied his forces used chemical weapons.
"The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn't use them around Damascus, 5 km from the (U.N.) committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so," Muslim told Reuters.
...
Muslim suggested "some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action" lay behind the chemical attack, which has led to speculation that Western countries will order a military response.
He said that if the U.N. inspectors found evidence Assad was not behind the gassing and the rebels were, "everybody would forget it".
"Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr. Erdogan of Turkey?" Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all strongly condemned Assad and backed the rebels.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE97P0Q520130826
(Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not be "so stupid" as to use chemical weapons close to Damascus, the leader of the country's largest Kurdish group said.
Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), said he doubted the Syrian president would resort to using such weapons when he felt he had the upper hand in the country's civil war.
He suggested last Wednesday's attack, which the opposition says was carried out by government forces and killed hundreds of people, was aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction. Assad has denied his forces used chemical weapons.
"The regime in Syria ... has chemical weapons, but they wouldn't use them around Damascus, 5 km from the (U.N.) committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so," Muslim told Reuters.
...
Muslim suggested "some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action" lay behind the chemical attack, which has led to speculation that Western countries will order a military response.
He said that if the U.N. inspectors found evidence Assad was not behind the gassing and the rebels were, "everybody would forget it".
"Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr. Erdogan of Turkey?" Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all strongly condemned Assad and backed the rebels.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE97P0Q520130826
Although its possible some rebel elements may also have had access to chemical weapons, the technology to deliver it - specifically rockets that disseminate the agent before making impact - suggests it was the regime. Not to say it was done with Assad's consent though.
Mods - is it worth having a poll on military intervention in Syria?
We haven't had a good CE poll in a while.
We haven't had a good CE poll in a while.
I just don't buy it, why would Assad want to test the resolve of the west ,which some so called expert on Radio 5 said may have happened.And what is the point of the UN if we and Americans have already made up our minds.
It is only a matter of time before Obama sends in the cruise missiles.
Cameron has claimed that they know 10 instances in which Assad has used chemical weapons.
The tone of the statement did at least imply that this will be viewed as a punitive strike rather than a campaign. A Tory MP on Radio Fivelive just now was getting all very carried away i thought [seeking a promotion perhaps], comparing this proposed strike to standing up to Hitler and the defeat of the slave trade. His most immediate delusion was that he believed all of Assad's WMD stockpiles could be destroyed.
On the other hand a Tory MP who attended Sandhurst was earlier struggling to rationalise the strategy behind all this.
It's ironic when you think about it, prior to Iraq it was Blair following the more hawkish US president, here Obama is closer to a dove than the British PM.
Since the coalition's defence cuts and so called SDSR in 2010, we could be approaching two missions for which their policy toward the Royal Navy and RAF in particular has not stood the test of even a few years.
Cameron will rightly struggle to win the vote on Thursday.
The tone of the statement did at least imply that this will be viewed as a punitive strike rather than a campaign. A Tory MP on Radio Fivelive just now was getting all very carried away i thought [seeking a promotion perhaps], comparing this proposed strike to standing up to Hitler and the defeat of the slave trade. His most immediate delusion was that he believed all of Assad's WMD stockpiles could be destroyed.
On the other hand a Tory MP who attended Sandhurst was earlier struggling to rationalise the strategy behind all this.
It's ironic when you think about it, prior to Iraq it was Blair following the more hawkish US president, here Obama is closer to a dove than the British PM.
Since the coalition's defence cuts and so called SDSR in 2010, we could be approaching two missions for which their policy toward the Royal Navy and RAF in particular has not stood the test of even a few years.
Cameron will rightly struggle to win the vote on Thursday.
Oil up, DOW down, hmmm what could be the cause of that?
A key question it is too. One that Western democrats should have been able to answer before picking sides they didn't understand and encouraging civil wars in the 'Arab spring'. A question that still can't be answered as the violence continues to rise, not just in Syria, but in Libya and Egypt too.
Sir Andrew Green [former UK ambassador to Syria] is talking a lot of sense on Fivelive at the minute, if you can listen i would recommend it.
In essence he feels that Cameron is rushing to war without considering the consequences.
In essence he feels that Cameron is rushing to war without considering the consequences.
Just tuned in but it doesn't seen to be on any longer.
What's your feeling reg. the parliament vote tomorrow?
If they release a clip of the interview or publish the quotes i'll try and post them.
As for the vote...well at around the time of the last G8 conference i don't think Cameron had even half of his party supporting him stance on Syria. Moreover the government's defence cuts were not popular amongst back benchers so that will too engender a degree of resentment at a time like this.
The only way i can see the PM winning the vote with any comfort is if Labour MPs back the proposal in large numbers.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...n-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say
Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say
whether there is a strike or not what is clear is Assad is not going to be able to govern Syria no matter what. He has lost all credibility with what he has done now. All the powers (Russia,China,US, Britain and France) would like a secular state. But the alternative to Assad has not appeared. I suspect the reason is if someone steps up from the moderates among the rebels, he will be a target for both the Pro-Assad section and the extremists/terrorist/fundementalists...or whatever you want to call them. So what will end up is a refugee situation that will require the UN to oversee.
Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say
whether there is a strike or not what is clear is Assad is not going to be able to govern Syria no matter what. He has lost all credibility with what he has done now. All the powers (Russia,China,US, Britain and France) would like a secular state. But the alternative to Assad has not appeared. I suspect the reason is if someone steps up from the moderates among the rebels, he will be a target for both the Pro-Assad section and the extremists/terrorist/fundementalists...or whatever you want to call them. So what will end up is a refugee situation that will require the UN to oversee.
My two points having read through this thread:
1. People will call almost anything 'going to war' nowadays.
2. Supporting Assad because elements of his opposition are horrid is pretty much the same as supporting the Ancien Regime.
edit: A third:
3. People comparing this to the Iraq WMD debacle are daft. I'm fairly sure there weren't hundreds of bodies lining the streets of Erbil the week before Colin Powell made his absurd presentation.
1. People will call almost anything 'going to war' nowadays.
2. Supporting Assad because elements of his opposition are horrid is pretty much the same as supporting the Ancien Regime.
edit: A third:
3. People comparing this to the Iraq WMD debacle are daft. I'm fairly sure there weren't hundreds of bodies lining the streets of Erbil the week before Colin Powell made his absurd presentation.
Edit: Mods feel free to remove the link if it's bothersome.
Edit 2: This guy on twitter posted the following links - Shocking stuff really, worth a read and if you can stomach it, watch the clips.:
http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/
Back in January:
The source was infowars, which isn't the best of sources I admit but still, here we are.
Edit 2: This guy on twitter posted the following links - Shocking stuff really, worth a read and if you can stomach it, watch the clips.:
http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/
Back in January:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html
The source was infowars, which isn't the best of sources I admit but still, here we are.
1.
So apparently bombing your country for three straight days doesn't mean war nowadays? 
2. First they're not just "elements", they're the most important element which will seize control if Assad's regime falls (again, read about what's happening in Raqqa if you're having doubts about this). And second, they're not just "horrid", they were the reason (or the justification) the US used to start a war that lasted more than 10 years on two countries (and you're still struggling to beat them in those two countries).. It's exactly that same enemy that you've already helped gain ground in Libya, and now you're trying to help them control yet another country.
3. Are you deliberately trying to avoid discussing the (arguably higher) possibility that it was a false flag operation? I'm pretty sure many countries would have liked to help the rebels execute it, like Saudi Arabia for example, which has invested a lot already in this war already, and wouldn't accept to lose it? What makes you even trust the US in their intentions? Surely if they are ok that Saddam uses chemical weapons because they just didn't want Iran to win the war, what makes the situation different now?
The fact that the US isn't seeking the support of the UN, is doing this on its own (with a few allies) and not on behalf of the international community, and the fact that they didn't even wait for the UN to investigate it (and even discouraged them from doing so), and want us just to rely on their "intelligence" means it's actually pretty close to what happened in Iraq..
1.
No, it doesn't, any more than our previous interventions (interferences might be a better term) in dozens of civil wars over hundreds of years meant we were at 'war' with those nations. As for the rest of your guff, I get it, you're one of those reflexively 'anti imperialists' who never met a monster you couldn't love as long as they said the right things about the Great Satan. I bet you even watch Kremlin TV and insist it's 'real news'. False flags and Iraq, Christ but you don't half speak the language.
Incidentally, I'm largely opposed to Western intervention in Syria, but for logical and morally sound reasons, not because I read some Chomsky and some Said and think that means I'm an authority on international politics.
There are a lot of evidences that support this possibility actually.. A few months ago 12 Al-Nusra fighters were caught in Turkey with 2 kg of Sarin (almost all Turkish newspapers reported it at the time), but then after that the governor denied it was sarin and said they were unknown chemicals that were sent to the lab for further investigations. Russia pressed Turkey many times to publish the results of the investigations, but we didn't hear anything about it after that.
Also this article on CNN sheds more light on Al-Qaeda and their use of chemical weapons.. What interested me the most is this part:
In documents found by the U.S. Navy SEALs who raided Osama bin Laden's compound two years ago in Abbottabad, Pakistan, there was a letter written by bin Laden five days before he was killed in which he urged his followers in Yemen who were considering using "poison" to be "careful of doing it without enough study of all aspects, including political and media reaction."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/opinion/bergen-chemical-weapons-syria