# Syria



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 12, 2012)

> WASHINGTON — Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assadhave fired Scud missiles at rebel fighters in recent days, Obama administration officials said on Wednesday.
> 
> The move represents a significant escalation in the fighting, which has already killed more than 40,000 civilians in a nearly two-year-old conflict that has threatened to destabilize the Middle East, and suggests increased desperation on the part of the Assad government.


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/world/middleeast/syria-war-developments-assad.html?_r=0

How long before the CBW warheads start to fly?


----------



## Master slacker (Dec 12, 2012)

How long until Obama doesn't enter another war?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 12, 2012)

Obama doesn't engage in "war". He engages in Kinetic Military Action. Totally different thing.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 12, 2012)

Newton's First Law of War: A country at war tends to stay at war.


----------



## Exengineer (Dec 14, 2012)

Hoping for Russia to step in for Assad and blow away all the foreign rebels and terrorists trying to destabilize yet another Middle East nation. As if the world needs another Libya or Iraq.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 14, 2012)

> INCIRLIK AIR BASE, Turkey (AP) - The U.S. will send two batteries of Patriot missiles and 400 troops to Turkey as part of a NATO force meant to protect Turkish territory from potential Syrian missile attack, the Pentagon said Friday.
> 
> Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed a deployment order en route to Turkey from Afghanistan calling for 400 U.S. soldiers to operate two batteries of Patriots at undisclosed locations in Turkey, Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters flying with Panetta.
> 
> ...


http://www.wistv.com...roops-to-turkey


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 18, 2013)

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House on Wednesday and discussed the conflict in Syria, a spokeswoman said.
> 
> The meeting was not on Obama's public schedule.
> 
> ...




http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-meets-saudi-foreign-minister-discusses-syria-223009934.html

I read something this morning that indicated the US was about to send troops to the region, but dismissed it, since it was Saudi based.


----------



## snickerd3 (Apr 18, 2013)

Some of my good friends in High school were from syria....guess their family made a good choice coming to america when they did.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Apr 18, 2013)

I hope we don't get involved in Syria. The last thing that we need is to get involved in more Mid-East conflicts.


----------



## Judowolf PE (Apr 18, 2013)

having spent some time in the region back in my younger days...the political and religious systems were f'ed up, but when you got out and met the actual normal folks, they were just that, normal folks. Maybe I was naive or I'm just too easy to get along with, but I find that people on a one-on-one basis to be fairly easy to get along with in most places...it's when governments and religious extremists get involved that things goto sh!t...


----------



## FLBuff PE (Apr 18, 2013)

A person is intelligent...people are dumb.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 18, 2013)

FLBuff PE said:


> A person is intelligent...people are dumb.




QFT, dude, QFT.


----------



## Judowolf PE (Apr 18, 2013)

FLBuff PE said:


> A person is  can be intelligent...people are dumb.


fixed it...


----------



## Road Guy (Apr 18, 2013)

No war for oil!!!

Or is that just when a republican is in office?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 19, 2013)

> The Pentagon is sending about 200 soldiers from a U.S. Army headquarters unit to Jordan to assist efforts to contain violence along the Syrian border and plan for any operations needed to ensure the safety of chemical weapons in Syria, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress Wednesday.
> 
> The decision to dispatch the 1st Armored Division troops of planners and specialists in intelligence, logistics and operations comes as several lawmakers pressed the Obama administration for even more aggressive steps to end the two-year civil war.
> 
> Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced persistent questions from senior members of the Armed Services Committee about efforts to force out Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Pentagon leaders made clear that the situation is extremely complicated and they must be certain of the endgame before any military step to try to end the bloodshed.


http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/11925

I can't vouch for site veracity...


----------



## Master slacker (Apr 25, 2013)

Judowolf PE said:


> FLBuff PE said:
> 
> 
> > A person is  can be intelligent...people are dumb.
> ...




(sigh) I can't help but think that the sand people of the middle east aren't the most intelligent. I flipped over to Foxnews.com and saw the picture below:







WHY THE FLIP would one think that a full face respirator would work with a wookie on your face? That respirator would only be cosmetic. Doesn't anyone over there think about these things? :screwloose:


----------



## Judowolf PE (Apr 25, 2013)

ahhh, who needs tight seal, this'll keep most of it out


----------



## Supe (Apr 25, 2013)

Master slacker said:


> Judowolf PE said:
> 
> 
> > FLBuff PE said:
> ...






I don't know, who thinks it will work when it's sitting on your forehead for that matter?


----------



## Judowolf PE (Apr 25, 2013)

^I'm not sure, but I do know when you are in a steel I-beam tent with a wood floor and that SOB gets blown over by a Scud, you can find and put on your mask n chem gear in no time flat...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 14, 2013)

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/syria-us-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Anyone surprised?


----------



## Master slacker (Jun 14, 2013)

Is our dear president ever aware of ANYTHING? Seriously.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 14, 2013)

Capt Worley PE said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/syria-us-chemical-weapons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> 
> Anyone surprised?


I'm surprised it took this long. I knew he would pull a rabbit out of a hat to try to get the spotlight off of him given all of the scandals he is facing right now. I figured it would happen in the midst of the IRS stuff.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm waiting for him to claim the first he heard about it was when he saw it in the newspaper.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 14, 2013)

Master slacker said:


> Is our dear president ever aware of ANYTHING? Seriously.


He knows I called my wife last night to say I was on my way home...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jun 14, 2013)

Flyer_PE said:


> I'm waiting for him to claim the first he heard about it was when he saw it in the newspaper.




I still can't beleive he basically got a free pass on that one.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 27, 2013)

Now Kerry's making decisions based on what he saw on social media?



> Last night after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I* went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. *It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/26/215845759/2-excerpts-to-read-from-kerrys-speech-about-syria


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 27, 2013)

Lead from following. That gives me confidence in our country's leaders.


----------



## csb (Aug 27, 2013)

Syria has been alarming. Their government is denying everything and our government in the beginning was saying, "Well, you know, we don't really know anything." We can't keep track of a volatile country, yet we're "accidentally" tracking the every move of 50,000 not-terrorists?


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 27, 2013)

they don't know anythign that isn't classfied...they know lots of stuff they just can't tell us because we don't have the proper clearance levels.


----------



## csb (Aug 27, 2013)

The professor I worked for in college was from Syria. I asked, back in 2001, if he ever visited. He said, "Are you crazy?! No one visits Syria. Too many machine guns."

I'm starting to get hardened to us fighting wars for other countries. This just doesn't seem right:



> President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.
> 
> The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.
> 
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

The U.S. isn't the world's parent. We can't send Syria to its room via military strike. That seems like, say for instance, launching a chemical attack on a group of people.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 27, 2013)

snickerd3 said:


> they don't know anythign that isn't classfied...they know lots of stuff they just can't tell us because we don't have the proper clearance levels.




The way the CIA has been weakened, I'm not convinced they have any idea whther Assad's forces or the rebels gassed those folks.

You notice it was pretty much all women and children and ALL civilian? On the surface of it, it looks like Johnny reb was mixing up a batch of nerve agent and it got away.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 27, 2013)

csb said:


> The professor I worked for in college was from Syria. I asked, back in 2001, if he ever visited. He said, "Are you crazy?! No one visits Syria. Too many machine guns."
> 
> I'm starting to get hardened to us fighting wars for other countries. This just doesn't seem right:
> 
> ...


The US: Where the police act like a military and the military acts like the police.

I hope we don't get involved. What is going on is horrible, but we have too much of a history of missteps and ulterior motives - not to mention that we apparently have incomplete intelligence, and frankly unless we annex them there is no reason to spend US lives or taxpayer money. If the UN steps in and we go along for the ride, that's different... but they should lead, not US.


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 27, 2013)

^ Wow, I agree with EC. In addition to the potential missteps, ulterior motives and waste of taxpayer money, another concern is that Assad's regime is protecting a number of ethnic and religious minorities. If we help take down Assad's government, Syria might become yet another violent Islamist cluster-f that oppresses its minorities.


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 27, 2013)

Any president other than Obama they could at least put a carrier group close by and scare them, but I don't think anyone is scared of Obama... Except for law abiding Americans....

So sad for the people in the region..... There basically fucked forever...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Road Guy said:


> Any president other than Obama they could at least put a carrier group close by and scare them, but I don't think anyone is scared of Obama...




He should have, and they aren't.

And he has proven over and over they shouldn't be.

Libya...nothing.

Iran...nothing.

Egypt...nothing.

Syria...maybe 20 Tomahawks after several years.


----------



## Supe (Aug 28, 2013)

IMO, they need to let Syria ride at this point, for much of the reasons YMZ pointed out.

You take out their chemical weapons? OK, they'll import them right back in from Russia/N. Korea, etc. Oh, but now you've pissed them off and given yet another reason to retaliate against the US. A "strategic strike" at this point is the equivalent of slapping a serial killer on the ass, shaking your finger at him, and saying "don't do it again, mister."


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Supe said:


> IMO, they need to let Syria ride at this point, for much of the reasons YMZ pointed out.




I would agree *except* the CW need to be destroyed/secured from the rebels.

I have a feeling if we don't, the Israelis will. THAT would inflame the region.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 28, 2013)

1) Napalm

2) Create glass

3) Profit


----------



## Supe (Aug 28, 2013)

Can it get any more inflamed? I think the perception won't be much different. IT's either the Israeli's taking them, or them subbing the work out to us.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Wall Street Journal has an interesting Editorial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Supe said:


> Can it get any more inflamed?




Yes, yes it can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/strike-on-syria-would-cause-one-on-israel-iran-declares.html?_r=0


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2013)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Wall Street Journal has an interesting Editorial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop




I guess we are kinda yelling, "Ready or not, here we come!" to Syria.

I still think this is a bad, horrible, no-good idea.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

^I don't think there are any options that aren't bad and horrible.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 28, 2013)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Wall Street Journal has an interesting Editorial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324591204579039011328308776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


So... we're docking their allowance?

I did see an interesting article; supposedly we have intercepts of a higher-up ripping into a commander for using chemical weapons. If true, that tells me two things: First, it wasn't ordered. Second, that the weapons have been made available to commanders on the ground without oversight.

(Also, these are the kinds of leaks we should go after. But that's a different topic.)


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2013)

The pacifist in me is still struggling with who we are intending to kill in these strikes. The images of children from the last week don't inspire me to think bombing the crap out of these folks is going to be a a good thing.

That said, I know that war and fighting includes a lot of horrible things that I am glad I don't have to think about on a daily basis.


----------



## Judowolf PE (Aug 28, 2013)

The problem with this region is that if/when we step in and take control, who do you leave to run the government after we leave? Sadam was one of our mistakes from the 80's, we helped him into power and then he turned on us. It's one thing to drive one country out of another country, but to step into a civil war is another issue completely. You have to pick a side and just because the rebels are the enemy of our "enemy" Assad, doesn't make them our friend. Helping to drive one government out, and expecting the new government to be grateful doesn't seem to be one of our strong suits.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

csb said:


> The pacifist in me is still struggling with who we are intending to kill in these strikes.




I think the overall plan will be knock out CW weapons w/out killing anyone but the folks guarding them.

Then just sit back and let them pop at one another with AK-47s.

Judo, in this case taking out Assad isn't a great option because what follows will be worse. Our gov wants this to work out on its own timeline, minus the CWs.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2013)

No one stepped in and helped us when those rebels in the South had their little uprising.

oking:


----------



## Judowolf PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Capt, I fully agree. I believe that we should be more hands off on these civil war situations, especially in the Middle East. I was in support of the Iraq war simply for the WMD issue, which I still believe were there. Sadam was harsh, but kept the country mostly stable.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Judowolf PE said:


> Capt, I fully agree. I believe that we should be more hands off on these civil war situations, especially in the Middle East. I was in support of the Iraq war simply for the WMD issue, which I still believe were there. Sadam was harsh, but kept the country mostly stable.




And do you recall where Saddam's CWs were reputed to have gone before Gulf War II started? Hmmmm......

(hint, it is in the title of the thread)


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 28, 2013)

csb said:


> No one stepped in and helped us when those rebels in the South had their little uprising.
> 
> oking:


True, but during the Revolution Americans did receive aid from France and Spain.


----------



## Judowolf PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Unfortunately, if Syria wants WMD's, they can get them from their buddies the Russians...to me it's a lot like North Korea, China may not like their little brother very much, but don't you go knocking him down...


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 28, 2013)

CW...fall into the inventions i wish could have been uninvented category.


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 28, 2013)

csb said:


> No one stepped in and helped us when those rebels in the South had their little uprising.
> 
> oking:


It wasn't an uprising, we freely entered into a union and we felt we could freely exit it.....


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Judowolf PE said:


> Unfortunately, if Syria wants WMD's, they can get them from their buddies the Russians...




Nah, I think by treaty Russia can't do that, although the Russians helped with the CW program (always a loophole).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

That's another little twist, to it. Russia probably doesn't want the depth of their involvement in Syria's CW program know.

Also note in that Wiki link about Iraq's CWs...



> When Iraq joined the CWC in 2009, it declared "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[12]


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Road Guy said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > No one stepped in and helped us when those rebels in the South had their little uprising.
> ...


And thus began the War of Northern Aggression.


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2013)

Is anyone else confusing chemical weapons and Captain Worley when we're abbreviating CW?

I don't think we've ever come out ahead when we've assisted other countries in battles via providing weapons. This seems like we're detonating the weapons first.


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 28, 2013)

csb said:


> Is anyone else confusing chemical weapons and Captain Worley when we're abbreviating CW?




Yes! I like when one CW gets in my face but not the other.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 28, 2013)

^^^ What do you have against Capt in your face?


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 28, 2013)

csb said:


> No one stepped in and helped us when those rebels in the South had their little uprising.
> 
> oking:




It's called "The War of Northern Aggression" for a reason.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 28, 2013)

Damn, didn't realize there was a second page and Capt beat me to the line. ldman:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

Master slacker said:


> Damn, didn't realize there was a second page and Capt beat me to the line. ldman:




Gol darn weezians. Always late to the party.


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 28, 2013)

YMZ PE said:


> csb said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else confusing chemical weapons and Captain Worley when we're abbreviating CW?
> ...








Dexman PE said:


> ^^^ What do you have against Capt in your face?




For one thing, nerve gas is odorless.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

YMZ PE said:


> YMZ PE said:
> 
> 
> > csb said:
> ...




Not my nerve gas!


----------



## YMZ PE (Aug 28, 2013)

^ My point exactly.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 28, 2013)

I'm a gdweapon of mass destruction!!!!!


----------



## csb (Aug 28, 2013)

Did someone call me?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 28, 2013)

snickerd3 said:


> CW...fall into the inventions i wish could have been uninvented category.


Indeed.

As to the "Syria got their weapons from Iraq" line, there are some things to consider:

First, any such arms would be well on their way to fully degraded - Iraq used single-chamber CW loads, not split systems that do the mixing on the fly, resulting in shelf lives measured in weeks rather than years.

Second, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080602_syrianwmd.pdf

Syria has had CW tech since Reagan was President. Why would they use inferior Iraqi tech?

Third, Assad's a Shia, Saddam was Sunni. The only chemical weapons Saddam would have given him would be armed.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm genuinely surprised that it took almost 10 months before we got drawn into this BS. It gives me hope that most people don't support getting into another war that doesn't affect us at all, but then I see a quote like this...



> Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.
> 
> "I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons," Powell said.
> 
> Asked what changed her mind, she said: "What's going on over there is terrible." However, Powell praised Obama's wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.


From: http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html

There is so much wrong there.


This person seems to get her opinion directly from the television.

Nothing changed since she was given her previous opinion, but now she has a 100% different view because the TV told her to.

She supports getting involved because things are "terrible" in Syria. This war has been going on for over 2 years...shit has been terrible for a long time now.

She thinks Obama doesn't want to get the US involved in another war when he is specifically asking Congress to give him such authority, and hasn't said he won't do it anyway without the approval of Congress.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 5, 2013)

If the issue was really the WMDs, we should have slammed them with Tomahawks when they started mating the warheads with the delivery vehicles. And we knew when that happened (it was on the news), but nothing was done. If we had done it then, there would be no gassing, and we could come off as heroes for 'doing the right thing' provided we hit only the depots where the warhead/vehicle mating occured.

But we didn't.

We dithered, postured politically, and looked for concensus, and let 1400 folks get gassed, and now there are all sorts of political ramifications for action.

The window of opportunity has closed for a legitimate (not to mention effective) destruction of the WMD stockpiles.

I hate to say it, but I think we should screwed the pooch in a major way, here.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 9, 2013)

I love The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/?utm_source=Facebook&amp;utm_medium=SocialMarketing&amp;utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1efault


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 9, 2013)

I didn't expect this, but the Russians may have solved Obama's problems for him.



> In a surprise move, Russia promised Monday to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
> 
> The announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
> 
> ...


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Russia-to-push-Syria-to-surrender-chemical-weapons


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 9, 2013)

We'll, what he MEANT to say...



> In what looks like an off-the-cuff blunder, Secretary of State John Kerry might have accidentally given Russian President Vladmir Putin the opportunity to muddy the international diplomatic waters and buy his friends in Syria some time.
> During a press briefing on Monday, Kerry said that Assad could avoid American air strikes by giving up all his chemical weapons within a week. Within hours, the State Department was forced to walk Kerry's new red line back with the claim that he was making a "rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."
> 
> It seems, then, reasonable to conclude that Kerry spoke out of turn. Kerry was not authorized to offer Syria an "out" or a new ultimatum. But Kerry's hypothetical hyperbole appears to have already backfired.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Putin-takes-advantage-of-kerry-blunder

After the rash of shit that the Democrats gave Bush for all those years on Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm loving watching them squirm in their seats when people call out the stupid shit they say. Unfortunately, the only place you'll see stuff like this is on FoxNews or Drudge. CNN, NBC, and CBS are still fellating the President as hard as they can.


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 9, 2013)

And they swept Benghazi under the rug and acted like it wasn't any big deal at all.. He'll it was just a terrorist attack on us soil....


----------



## Exception Collection (Sep 10, 2013)

Road Guy said:


> And they swept Benghazi under the rug and acted like it wasn't any big deal at all.. He'll it was just a terrorist attack on us soil....


How many embassies were attacked under Bush?

As for Syria - hopefully they disarm, but there's no way Putin would have pushed for this even slightly without US saber rattling.


----------



## CbusPaul (Sep 10, 2013)

I don't believe the issue was the embassy getting attacked. That happens under all U.S. Presidents. The issue was that the ambassador asked for help, didn't receive it, and it appears that the administration is trying to cover up their response to the attack. Additionally, this administration made up a reason for the attack that they knew wasn't true while the attack was happening.


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 10, 2013)




----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Sep 10, 2013)

I love how more Americans get their opinions from "celebrities" then they do from the "news"...


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 10, 2013)

It is sad, most people won't watch unless they see what some actor has to say about it......

The only people that will benefit from us bombing Syria is the folks that make the bombs..missiles, etc....


----------

