• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Syria - Message being sent

I was being sarcastic with the Hillary quote, but we don't have a smilie for that.

Yes, for the lack of a smilie I misread your post. I knew I had heard/seen that phrase before but it eluded me. And yes, that is exactly how our government is taking this. Anything to get the spotlight off his domestic problems...let's start a war to give the presstitutes something else to write about..
 
OhioArcher said:
MossLvR said:
Well, I am sure many mouths have tried cashing cheques and ended up back peddling at sometime or the other. Be kinda devilish if he killed some just to prove a point....not sure how different from Assad that would be.

Not much different but the repercussions would be 10 fold. We are supposed to be the ones who set the tone, the ones who stand above the atrocities that other countries do. Now we will be no better than them. There is no just cause...we are the Lone Ranger but for the wrong reasons---to appease our leader's big mouth and big ego. And that is not sufficient...
Hopefully, you are being sarcastic...;)

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4
 
solid circumstantial evidence

Is that like being "kind of pregnant?"

or

"Almost dead?"

Anyway, I knew when I first heard about it that there was a possibility that the Syrian opposition could have or would have done this in an effort to garner support.

Matter of fact, I found myself expecting that in the back of my head for a long time now. Especially after the "red line" statement.

Or even one of the other factions that would do something like that just to throw everyone off so they'd look bad while remaining anonymous and put down several thousand of the opposition while they're at it.

I know that Assad has blood on his hands. I'm not saying he doesn't, but I don't think that is the only person there with a vested interest either.

There are a lot of different people and "organizations" that want to be in power.

And one of the more common quotes on this forum.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
 
So if Obama says go, either with or without Congressional approval, and Putin sticks to his guns, will we go after Russian SAM sites either on Syrian soil, or afloat? There is a Russian missile cruiser on it's way (the Moskva) . http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 02,00.html

PUTIN GREETS OBAMA WITH SYRIA THREAT - President Obama arrived in Russia today to find the already failing relations with his host in even worse condition. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to provide his Syrian allies with a missile shield in the event of U.S. air strikes further complicates Obama’s flagging effort to win international support for an attack on Damascus. As the Guardian reports, Putin’s warning that an attack without UN backing would provoke military aid from Russia may drive away the handful of international partners for Obama’s proposed attack.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09 ... z2e1NP2O64

PS: The Moskva is a serious threat to aircraft and cruise missiles, besides other capabilities. Specs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva
 
^^^ What happens if Russia shoots down our tomahawks to protect Syria? Not "attacking" us, but just running interference on our shooting missiles at empty buildings? Cold War part deux? World wars have been started with less...if we attack Russian SAM capabilities, we had better bring all of the pain because there will be retaliation from Russia.

I've got a very bad feeling about this, and if I was in Israel, I'd have an extremely bad feeling.

Heaven help us if we do it on a symbolic day like 9/11.
 
zagmp03 said:
^^^ What happens if Russia shoots down our tomahawks to protect Syria? Not "attacking" us, but just running interference on our shooting missiles at empty buildings? Cold War part deux? World wars have been started with less...if we attack Russian SAM capabilities, we had better bring all of the pain because there will be retaliation from Russia.

I've got a very bad feeling about this, and if I was in Israel, I'd have an extremely bad feeling.

Heaven help us if we do it on a symbolic day like 9/11.

I think a lot of people are getting pretty puckered up about all this. Right now it's just a stare down, but it wouldn't take much to get to the pushin' and shovin' stage.
 
GunnyGene said:
zagmp03 said:
^^^ What happens if Russia shoots down our tomahawks to protect Syria? Not "attacking" us, but just running interference on our shooting missiles at empty buildings? Cold War part deux? World wars have been started with less...if we attack Russian SAM capabilities, we had better bring all of the pain because there will be retaliation from Russia.

I've got a very bad feeling about this, and if I was in Israel, I'd have an extremely bad feeling.

Heaven help us if we do it on a symbolic day like 9/11.

I think a lot of people are getting pretty puckered up about all this. Right now it's just a stare down, but it wouldn't take much to get to the pushin' and shovin' stage.
What's immoral and plays a significant role, who actually stands to gain from this? Always worth considering.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4
 
lol I talked to a guy that I work with and he thinks that the best plan is too....

"Go in, full force, stomp the shit out of them and then leave them burning.... We could probably take the whole place in 72 hours."

Cause that is a BRILLIANT plan haha I asked him what about Russia and China, what does he think they will do.... "What about Russia and China??" was his reply................. Nuf-sed?
 
Itsricmo said:
lol I talked to a guy that I work with and he thinks that the best plan is too....

"Go in, full force, stomp the shit out of them and then leave them burning.... We could probably take the whole place in 72 hours."

Cause that is a BRILLIANT plan haha I asked him what about Russia and China, what does he think they will do.... "What about Russia and China??" was his reply................. Nuf-sed?

I think your guy doesn't know diddlysquat about warfare. Just barstool bravado. :roll:
 
+1 Gunny

Anyone who says "Russia and China who?" needs to start reading books about how the UN was formed and why/how it has 5 permanent members of the security council. Neither are to be trifled with.

We can do a lot of things, but we can't do anything in 72 hours that will leave them "burning". Going in "full force" would take weeks at best and would make D-Day look like a ballet recital. Syria is not Afghanistan...
 
zagmp03 said:
+1 Gunny

Anyone who says "Russia and China who?" needs to start reading books about how the UN was formed and why/how it has 5 permanent members of the security council. Neither are to be trifled with.

We can do a lot of things, but we can't do anything in 72 hours that will leave them "burning". Going in "full force" would take weeks at best and would make D-Day look like a ballet recital. Syria is not Afghanistan...

It isn't Hiroshima either.

You see this kind of "all or nothing" idiocy coming from media talking heads and blogs all the time - on both sides of the issue. Even from former senior military officers who should know better. Perhaps they've forgotten what they were taught at the War Colleges - or are just spouting what they think people want to hear and what the network wants them to say. Just a popularity contest in many respects.
 
MossLvR said:
What's immoral and plays a significant role, who actually stands to gain from this? Always worth considering.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4

We definitely need to watch the back door...some little crap country is liable to take a shot at us while we focus solely on Syria. And it might hurt quite a bit...

This is classic cold-war stuff...who's gonna blink first? Who's gonna walk away with their chest puffed out? Or, who's going to push too far and send us right over the cliff? Forget about the fiscal cliff if we start trading blows with Russia and/or China.

Obama needs to sit down with Putin (like a big man should) and get this straightened out. But I feel that Obama does not have enough cajones to admit he is in the wrong and take a step back.

Watch out for China...they could easily tell North korea Kim to go ahead and move south with China's backing. Taiwan is out there as well. This is a huge chess game and those are some of the pieces.
 
I just got an email from our state Senator asking for participation in a public hearing about possible military action in Syria, while I don't think Obama and his senior level senate committee would listen to what Alaska has to say, I'm still happy to see that on a state level, we're being asked for our opinion.
 
I received one from Boehner's office about VA benefit briefings that will include his staff. I probably shouldn't go...I'd be telling his staff his time is up and for him to pack his bags...
 
Strange bedfellows indeed...

Syria’s Game of Thrones: Obama backs Al Qaida and the Chechen terrorists

From 1979 to 1989, the Soviet Union was involved in a long, drawn out war in Afghanistan which came to be known as “Russia’s Vietnam.” At the time, the US was backing anti Russian forces in the country. Those forces – collectively known as the Mujahideen – were fighting against the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

One of the main leaders of the Mujahideen was Osama Bin Laden – originally from a wealthy Saudi Arabian family – and were ultimately successful in toppling the government. They didn’t, however, form a new government right away, and ultimately the Pakistan and Saudi-backed Taliban were able to seize control. These radical groups backed Bin Laden’s attack on the US in September 11, prompting the US to enter a near-decade-long war in the country.

Unfortunately, it seems that neither Russia nor the US has learned much from history, and the geopolitical conflicts of the Cold War have shifted almost entirely to the Middle East. Russia’s control over Europe’s oil supply gives the country a substantial amount of influence in that region, but the oil comes from the Middle East, making it the strategically relevant region of the 21st century.

The difference between the Middle East and the former battleground of Eastern Europe, though, is that in the 1940s, Eastern Europe had no strong regional powers. The empires which had previously dominated the region had disintegrated, and no one had replaced them. The Middle East, however, does have its own strong regional players.

The Saudis and Iranians are vying for control over the Middle East, and each support different sets of regional forces. The Saudis are allied with the USA, while Iran is backed by Russia and China; the Saudis support Al Qaida, and Iran supports Hezbollah. The Saudis support the rebel forces – much as they did in Afghanistan – while Iran’s alliance is with Syria’s current leader, Bashar Hafez al-Assad.

It’s in this context that recent reports of Saudi-Russian negotiations have emerged. In a recent meeting with Vladimir Putin, Prince Bandar bin Sultan tried to urge the Russian President to withhold support from Assad’s regime. The Saudi Prince and intelligence leader reportedly offered Putin a multi-billion dollar arms deal, as well as guaranteed continued control over Europe’s oil supply.

Russia declined, but Russian and Lebanese reports have detailed other alleged incentives from Saudi Arabia. Russia’s relationship with Syria gives it a warm-water naval base on the Mediterranean, and Bandar promised to safeguard that even if Assad is removed from power. He also issued threats, according to those sources, including threatening the Russian Olympics next year.

“The Chechen groups which threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he said, adding that “We use them in the face of the Syrian regime, but they have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.” He said this to assuage any potential Russian concerns over helping the Chechen terrorists who have killed so many Russian civilians.

It’s worth noting that, as America backs the Saudis, and they back Al Qaida and the Chechen terrorists, through its relationship with the House of Saud, America is actually helping to fund terrorism against both Russia and itself. The moral implications are far greater than any inaction in Syria. Involvement in Syria will support Saudi Arabia more than it does anyone else in the region, or indeed the world. The Russians have every right to be skeptical of the Saudis, just as the US has every right to be skeptical of Iran.

Unlike Eastern Europe, the Russian-American geopolitical games in the Middle East will have no positive impact on the region or its people. Both countries are acting as mere pawns for regional empires with no moral conviction in their relations with other nations, or even toward their own citizens. To support either is shortsighted and actively detrimental, and could easily lead to more of the long, drawn out conflicts both Russia and America have experienced in the region.
 
The capacity of the ship is overstated in this report. Should be 300 troops + 1,700 tons including about 20 tanks and various trucks or 40 AFV's. I suspect the cargo is Russian air defense missiles and related equipment.

Russian landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov is reportedly heading to the Syrian coast as tension in the region continues to escalate.

The deployment of another vessel by Moscow, a key ally of Damascus, comes as the US considers unleashing a military strike against president Bashar al-Assad's regime.

"The vessel will dock in Novorossiysk where it will take special cargo on board and head to the designated area of military service in the eastern Mediterranean," an unnamed naval source told Russia's Interfax news agency.

The nature of the cargo is still unclear. The vessel has capacity for 3,300 (overstated) troops and 1,700 tonnes of cargo, including 20 tanks.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/50424 ... mascus.htm

And in addition we now have personal threats against Obama's family and others. It's not likely they could be carried out, but it's sure to piss off O. :

As Congress debates whether to support President Obama’s call for a limited strike against Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons, Iran is vowing to back Bashar al-Assad’s regime to the hilt and threatening to unleash terrorism should the U.S. strike.

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that “[w]e will support Syria to the end.”

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],” he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”

A similar act was committed in a video of the torture of William Buckley, a CIA station chief who was abducted in Beirut in 1984 and later killed by Hezbollah on Iran’s order. That video was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Athens. Former CIA Director William Casey later described what he saw in the video: “They had done more than ruin his body. His eyes made it clear his mind had been played with. It was horrific, medieval and barbarous.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran- ... z2e72BK78J
 
Would we take a chance on firing at Syria with a Russia ship in port? Would we be brazen enough to try to stop the Russian vessel as in the Cuban missile crisis? Yup, this chess game is well under way.

Oh, on the home front, do we need to pay particular attention to mosques and persons of Arabic attire (easy to cover weapons under their garb)? If there are so-called "sleeper cells" active in the US, will they be called upon to act on behalf of Syria and Iran?

What are conspiracy theorists around the world to think of these revelations? :geek: :?: ;)
 
A little known fact about Chem weapons:

Back when all those countries signed off on banning chemical weapons in the years following WWI, the reason given was because they are inhuman - which is true. But not advertised is that they were also ineffective as battlefield weapons for 2 primary reasons. Most countries by then had developed defenses (antidotes, protective gear) against them for their troops. The persistent agents, such as sulfur mustard, also rendered an area unusable for months or years to everyone, including your own people. The short lived agents (Tabun, Sarin, etc) could also blow back on your own troops if the wind wasn't just right or shifted. For these reasons the military of participating countries did not object to the ban.

That said, they are effective against unprotected civilians, which will get a lot of bad press against the side that uses them as we've seen periodically since then.
 
In addition to the Russian ship reported yesterday, 3 more Russian ships are in the Med heading towards Syria. 2 of them are LST types, beachable.
MOSCOW -- Three Russian naval ships were sailing toward Syria in the eastern Mediterranean on Friday and a fourth was on its way, the Interfax news agency reported, citing a source at navy headquarters.

Kremlin chief of staff Sergei Ivanov said Thursday that Russia was boosting its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, but primarily in order to organize a possible evacuation of Russians from Syria. He did not say how many vessels were being sent.

The prospect of increased Russian naval presence near Syria has stoked fears of a larger international conflict if the United States orders airstrikes over an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in a suburb of Damascus, the Syrian capital. The U.S. already has numerous war ships in the Mediterranean.

Two Russian amphibious landing vessels and a reconnaissance ship have passed through the Dardanelles strait, according to the report carried by Interfax, a privately owned agency known for its independent contacts within Russia's armed forces.

Three Russian war ships were seen sailing through the Bosporus in Istanbul, Turkey, on Thursday. It was not immediately clear if they were the same three vessels, although that seemed likely.

Interfax reported that another landing ship had left the Black Sea port of Sevastopol on Friday morning and was to pick up a "special cargo" in Novorossiysk before sailing toward the eastern Mediterranean. The state RIA Novosti news agency also said that the landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov would be headed toward Syria after picking up cargo in Novorossiysk, which it said would take several days.

The three ships reported to have passed through the Dardanelles are the Novocherkassk and Minsk landing vessels and Priazovye reconnaissance ship.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/0 ... 79361.html
 
Back
Top