Syria To Be Bombed Within Days

[bigrebnc1775]

Here we go again. WWIII is just around the corner.

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria - Telegraph

Ten years ago liberals were bitching about Iraq now they cheer for this shit.

 

[Hossfly]

I think many people assume it's going to be a few days of bombing and a quick surrender or total defeat for the Syrian government.
Fat chance.

Factbox: Why small producer Syria matters to oil markets | Reuters

Moscow Signs Oil Deal With Syria, Sends Ships | Business | The Moscow Times

Russia is well tied up in Syrian oil and won't want to lose it.
That's unlikely to mean a direct conflict with America but they'll send arms to Assad.

China will be helping things along as well.
Exclusive: Iran helps Syria ship oil to China: sources | Reuters

Both countries need to fuel and neither country will take kindly to an American attack that may well lose them their influence in Syria.

1-888-551-1277. Remember that number; you may well need it.

There is little to no chance of us going to war with Russia and China.

Agreed...........
but that doesn't mean Russia and China won't supply anti ship missiles or even operate them for the Syrian government.
This time, America might well get a shock it won't like.

Ever seen a Phalanx in action, Fred?

This will capture their attention. Guarenteed.

Phalanx Close-In Weapon System | Military.com

 

[Hossfly]

Love the way we're broadcasting when we will attack. Okay bad guys, we are going to hit you on Thursday. Make sure you're clear of the area so you don't get hurt. Libs are great at conducting military operations. Yeah right. As if any of them ever served.

Your comments are correct and it is amazing how much detail is freely given to Syria and everybody to see, so they can optimally prepare themselves for the potential attack.
It's probably all to do with this politically correct obsession with freedom of information where every minute detail has to be intimately shared even if it's against the country interests.

Of course all these reports could be a bluff ....who knows.... but yes....a lot of information is out there for everybody to access.

Hehe I would not believe this if I were them... I would ask "Would Macy's tell Gimbels?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/nyregion/thecity/19gimb.html?_r=0

It would have to be on Thursday. Obumble doesn't kill other Muslims on Friday. He be in prayer all day.

 

[Hossfly]

And you're just licking your chops, eh Ahmed? Don't get your burkha in a knot.

This post doesn't make any sense.

It does.
What he's saying is, he thinks I'm hoping for American ships to be sunk in the battle but, he's totally unable to express himself because he's far too stupid to come up with a reasonable reply to a post.

However, in posting such a reply, he simply shows other posters his level of stupidity but, as is common with thick people, he has no idea how stupid he comes over.

However, I would like to see a couple of ships visit Davy Jones'locker as a larger loss might just wake the American people up to their government's stupidity and change a foreign policy that's killed millions and brought misery to so many more.
300 dead now is far better than the thousands or more killed by American government stupidity over so many years.

No one really notices the 4488 soldiers killed in Iraq or the 2,124 dead in Afghanistan because they generally get killed in smaller groups but if the Mahan or Gravely went down, that'd be 300 dead in one go.

Perhaps it would be a foreteller of doom if the USS Barry were to get a missile up its arse and get seriously fucked.

The Cole, a ship of the same type, managed to get a bloody great hole in it without much more than an attack by a rowing boat so the American ships could well be in serious danger.

You should also note; once America has attacked Syria, any and all American service people are legitimate military targets for Syria.
If America hits non military targets, that opens the door for Syrian agents in America to do the same to you.

I think, even if Syria can't actually attack America with conventional forces, you may well find dead in your streets because of unconventional actions.

The stupidity of any attack is a lot clearer than any evidence of who used chemical weapons.
So far, we have no actual evidence at all, just accusations.

Unless a poster here can link to anything .... anything at all....by anyone at all....

So far, assurances but absolutely no evidence but we see a military build up and a very likely war.
The stupidity is beyond words.

Well, Fred, any respect I had for you just flew out the window for wishing American ships to be deep-sixed. Nuff said.

 

[toastman]

It does.
What he's saying is, he thinks I'm hoping for American ships to be sunk in the battle but, he's totally unable to express himself because he's far too stupid to come up with a reasonable reply to a post.

However, in posting such a reply, he simply shows other posters his level of stupidity but, as is common with thick people, he has no idea how stupid he comes over.

However, I would like to see a couple of ships visit Davy Jones'locker as a larger loss might just wake the American people up to their government's stupidity and change a foreign policy that's killed millions and brought misery to so many more.
300 dead now is far better than the thousands or more killed by American government stupidity over so many years.

No one really notices the 4488 soldiers killed in Iraq or the 2,124 dead in Afghanistan because they generally get killed in smaller groups but if the Mahan or Gravely went down, that'd be 300 dead in one go.Perhaps it would be a foreteller of doom if the USS Barry were to get a missile up its arse and get seriously fucked.

My son is a flight crew member on an aircraft carrier. He sends us pictures from Indonesia. I will surely tell him that you wish him and 299 of his companions dead, Ahmed.

Who exactly are you calling Ahmed and why? It doesn't really do anything but make you look like a bigot since you obviously mean it in a derogatory way.

After wishing American ships sunk and the death of 300 American sailors he's lucky that's all I called him. And I don't give a happy horses ass what you think.

A few weeks ago, Freddie the good Muslim said that although he is against civilians getting killed, he is , and I quote, "Happy" when Jewish settlers are killed .
He's pretty sick, and I'm not surprised it says 'Extremist Muslim' by his username

 

[Hossfly]

Israel: The security cabinet has authorized the IDF to call up a limited number of reserve soldiers ahead of a possible strike by the West on Syria.

What's your reserve status, Lipush? I saw where missle defense crews and radar tecs and such are being called on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

Read more: Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers | The Daily Caller

 

[Hossfly]

Doesn't Obama need to get Congressional approval before entering into a war? Correct me if I missed something regarding this...

Congress has to give approval to send troops. It's in the Constitution. (Which Sheikh Obumble will ignore)

 

[Hossfly]

Who exactly are you calling Ahmed and why? It doesn't really do anything but make you look like a bigot since you obviously mean it in a derogatory way.

After wishing American ships sunk and the death of 300 American sailors he's lucky that's all I called him. And I don't give a happy horses ass what you think.

A few weeks ago, Freddie the good Muslim said that although he is against civilians getting killed, he is , and I quote, "Happy" when Jewish settlers are killed .
He's pretty sick, and I'm not surprised it says 'Extremist Muslim' by his username

It's not surprising that a Muslim convert like Freddie calls himself a Muslim extremist. It appears that many of the converts become extremists. Wasn't the Shoebomber Padilla a convert and also the guy who recently murdered that British soldier on the street? I don't think Freddie is going to go out and actually act like a lot of extremist Muslim converts do, but he sure sounds like he enjoys those sermons at the mosque where his Imam tells him how evil the Infidels are and that they should die.

 

[Foxfyre]

So the U.N. Security Council has effectively said the U.N. won't sanction military action against Iraq and now Cameron is the first U.K. Prime Minister in 150 years or so who failed to obtain an okay from Parliament re military action. And Obama doesn't seemed inclined to ask the U.S. Congress to vote on the matter and he isn't getting much encouragement from either side of the aisle there.

France isn't exactly committed to military action but has said they'll send some aid to the Syrian rebels.

But if the U.S. strikes, it will be pretty much a unilateral action at the order of the President alone.

And does anybody out there know what the objective will be if he does?

 

[Hossfly]

So the U.N. Security Council has effectively said the U.N. won't sanction military action against Iraq and now Cameron is the first U.K. Prime Minister in 150 years or so who failed to obtain an okay from Parliament re military action. And Obama doesn't seemed inclined to ask the U.S. Congress to vote on the matter and he isn't getting much encouragement from either side of the aisle there.

France isn't exactly committed to military action but has said they'll send some aid to the Syrian rebels.

But if the U.S. strikes, it will be pretty much a unilateral action at the order of the President alone.

And does anybody out there know what the objective will be if he does?

It seems to me he wants to kill some Muslims in order to protect other Muslims. Catch 22.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is in one of those Catch 22's for sure. At least some of the media is vocal about his campaign pledges that the President does not act without consent of Congress; there are reasons for separations of Congress; the USA should never go to war without a declaration of war and without U.S. interests clearly at stake, should not engage in a 'dumb war', yadda yadda.

So the Fox News expert on Middle East and Armed Forces is clearly supporting President Obama's impending strike on Lybia saying it is no different than Reagan's action in Granada, Panama, and Lybia, Clinton's actions re Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia. I have been thinking about that and have to agree that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.

Okay there was a CNN crew on the Somali beach to greet our troops there so somebody slipped--that was a major debacle--and the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was a NATO action. NATO is assisting Turkey in defending its Syrian border, but otherwise is not involved in the Syrian conflict. The U.N. refuses to even vote until it is certain whether illegal substances were used in Syria and who used them as that doesn't appear to be clear.

Reagan's strike on Lybia was after we had given them clear warning that if you attack us, we will retaliate immediately. They did and we did and we didn't hear a peep out of Lybia then for decades. Panama and Granada were both performed with no advance warning--none of us knew it would happen until it was over. Quick military strike to achieve specific objctives which were achieved.

So what is the objective in Syria? Who is the enemy? What is a strike supposed to achieve? What is the target? We have already said that there is no intention to facilitate a regime change. There are military bases all over Syria so taking them all out to prevent aerial attacks on citizens would be a major military action on our part. No Middle East countries are promoting this or supporting us in such a venture.

The U.K. and Germany will not be assisting; France's contribution though more militant is still pretty minor. Israel is no doubt bracing for any retaliation that will most likely be directed toward them instead of us.

I hope to hell somebody is thinking all this through.

 

[dilloduck]

He is in one of those Catch 22's for sure. At least some of the media is vocal about his campaign pledges that the President does not act without consent of Congress; there are reasons for separations of Congress; the USA should never go to war without a declaration of war and without U.S. interests clearly at stake, should not engage in a 'dumb war', yadda yadda.

So the Fox News expert on Middle East and Armed Forces is clearly supporting President Obama's impending strike on Lybia saying it is no different than Reagan's action in Granada, Panama, and Lybia, Clinton's actions re Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia. I have been thinking about that and have to agree that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.

Okay there was a CNN crew on the Somali beach to greet our troops there so somebody slipped--that was a major debacle--and the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was a NATO action. NATO is assisting Turkey in defending its Syrian border, but otherwise is not involved in the Syrian conflict. The U.N. refuses to even vote until it is certain whether illegal substances were used in Syria and who used them as that doesn't appear to be clear.

Reagan's strike on Lybia was after we had given them clear warning that if you attack us, we will retaliate immediately. They did and we did and we didn't hear a peep out of Lybia then for decades. Panama and Granada were both performed with no advance warning--none of us knew it would happen until it was offer. Quick military strike to achieve specific objctives which were achieved.

So what is the objective in Syria? Who is the enemy? What is a strike supposed to achieve? What is the target? We have already said that there is no intention to facilitate a regime change. There are military bases all over Syria so taking them all out to prevent aerial attacks on citizens would be a major military action on our part. No Middle East countries are promoting this or supporting us in such a venture.

The U.K. and Germany will not be assisting; France's contribution though more militant is still pretty minor. Israel is no doubt bracing for any retaliation that will most likely be directed toward them instead of us.

I hope to hell somebody is thinking all this through.

They've been thinking it through for some time now. They sat and thought about it when the first gas attacks happened in Syria months ago. I guess not enough people were killed that time to warrant any action. They been thinking about enough to decide to arm the "rebels". What they are really thinking is anyone's guess. My impression is that it's so important to somebody that they they are willing to take the risks involved. Israel has thought it through too. They have already attacked Syria twice that we know of.

 

[Hossfly]

He is in one of those Catch 22's for sure. At least some of the media is vocal about his campaign pledges that the President does not act without consent of Congress; there are reasons for separations of Congress; the USA should never go to war without a declaration of war and without U.S. interests clearly at stake, should not engage in a 'dumb war', yadda yadda.

So the Fox News expert on Middle East and Armed Forces is clearly supporting President Obama's impending strike on Lybia saying it is no different than Reagan's action in Granada, Panama, and Lybia, Clinton's actions re Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia. I have been thinking about that and have to agree that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.

Okay there was a CNN crew on the Somali beach to greet our troops there so somebody slipped--that was a major debacle--and the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was a NATO action. NATO is assisting Turkey in defending its Syrian border, but otherwise is not involved in the Syrian conflict. The U.N. refuses to even vote until it is certain whether illegal substances were used in Syria and who used them as that doesn't appear to be clear.

Reagan's strike on Lybia was after we had given them clear warning that if you attack us, we will retaliate immediately. They did and we did and we didn't hear a peep out of Lybia then for decades. Panama and Granada were both performed with no advance warning--none of us knew it would happen until it was offer. Quick military strike to achieve specific objctives which were achieved.

So what is the objective in Syria? Who is the enemy? What is a strike supposed to achieve? What is the target? We have already said that there is no intention to facilitate a regime change. There are military bases all over Syria so taking them all out to prevent aerial attacks on citizens would be a major military action on our part. No Middle East countries are promoting this or supporting us in such a venture.

The U.K. and Germany will not be assisting; France's contribution though more militant is still pretty minor. Israel is no doubt bracing for any retaliation that will most likely be directed toward them instead of us.

I hope to hell somebody is thinking all this through.

They've been thinking it through for some time now. They sat and thought about it when the first gas attacks happened in Syria months ago. I guess not enough people were killed that time to warrant any action. They been thinking about enough to decide to arm the "rebels". What they are really thinking is anyone's guess. My impression is that it's so important to somebody that they they are willing to take the risks involved. Israel has thought it through too. They have already attacked Syria twice that we know of.

Israel's actions against Syria were to neutralize missles. A defensive manuever. Get your facts straight.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is obvious that most of the world powers view the USA as indecisive and impotent these days. Obama obviously does not command much respect and hasn't made many, if any, friends. Compare that to George H.W. Bush in Desert Storm. The USA is called to assist aggression against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the President calls up 30 or 40 of his best friends around the world, and has Congressional and U.N. approval and a strong coalition put together within days.

Even in the case of Iraq in 2003, though there was far less enthusiasm to go after Iraq again. President George W. Bush did put together a coalition of nations who would help in various ways and was operating with Congressional consent and U.N. tacit if not explicit blessings. The U.N. had passed resolution after resolution threatening action against Iraq if Saddam did not cease and desist thwarting their inspectors. They weren't about to tell us no. Most Middle East countries were on board and did not object. They were worried about Saddam's capabilities and intent too.

This time? Nope. Little support from the American public over all. Extremely lukewarm support from members of Congress. Non committal from the U.N. and NATO with suggestion that a strike without clear evidence could be in violation of international law. All our best buddies seem to be otherwise occupied at the moment and won't be able to help. No thumbs up from other Middle East countries.

And yet the President has thrown down the gauntlet with his 'red line' ultimatum and will look even more weak and impotent if he does not follow through.

And so once again we have our precious blood and treasure at risk as still another American war ship moves into position in the Mediterranean.

I don't have a good feeling about this one at all.

 

[dilloduck]

He is in one of those Catch 22's for sure. At least some of the media is vocal about his campaign pledges that the President does not act without consent of Congress; there are reasons for separations of Congress; the USA should never go to war without a declaration of war and without U.S. interests clearly at stake, should not engage in a 'dumb war', yadda yadda.

So the Fox News expert on Middle East and Armed Forces is clearly supporting President Obama's impending strike on Lybia saying it is no different than Reagan's action in Granada, Panama, and Lybia, Clinton's actions re Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia. I have been thinking about that and have to agree that there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.

Okay there was a CNN crew on the Somali beach to greet our troops there so somebody slipped--that was a major debacle--and the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict was a NATO action. NATO is assisting Turkey in defending its Syrian border, but otherwise is not involved in the Syrian conflict. The U.N. refuses to even vote until it is certain whether illegal substances were used in Syria and who used them as that doesn't appear to be clear.

Reagan's strike on Lybia was after we had given them clear warning that if you attack us, we will retaliate immediately. They did and we did and we didn't hear a peep out of Lybia then for decades. Panama and Granada were both performed with no advance warning--none of us knew it would happen until it was offer. Quick military strike to achieve specific objctives which were achieved.

So what is the objective in Syria? Who is the enemy? What is a strike supposed to achieve? What is the target? We have already said that there is no intention to facilitate a regime change. There are military bases all over Syria so taking them all out to prevent aerial attacks on citizens would be a major military action on our part. No Middle East countries are promoting this or supporting us in such a venture.

The U.K. and Germany will not be assisting; France's contribution though more militant is still pretty minor. Israel is no doubt bracing for any retaliation that will most likely be directed toward them instead of us.

I hope to hell somebody is thinking all this through.

They've been thinking it through for some time now. They sat and thought about it when the first gas attacks happened in Syria months ago. I guess not enough people were killed that time to warrant any action. They been thinking about enough to decide to arm the "rebels". What they are really thinking is anyone's guess. My impression is that it's so important to somebody that they they are willing to take the risks involved. Israel has thought it through too. They have already attacked Syria twice that we know of.

Israel's actions against Syria were to neutralize missles. A defensive manuever. Get your facts straight.

Missiles that could have just as easily been used to fight the rebels. Israel helps the rebels by attacking Syria.

 

[Hossfly]

They've been thinking it through for some time now. They sat and thought about it when the first gas attacks happened in Syria months ago. I guess not enough people were killed that time to warrant any action. They been thinking about enough to decide to arm the "rebels". What they are really thinking is anyone's guess. My impression is that it's so important to somebody that they they are willing to take the risks involved. Israel has thought it through too. They have already attacked Syria twice that we know of.

Israel's actions against Syria were to neutralize missles. A defensive manuever. Get your facts straight.

Missiles that could have just as easily been used to fight the rebels. Israel helps the rebels by attacking Syria.

Medium and short range missles against the rebels? On the Israeli border? Anti-aircraft missles against the rebels? On the Israeli border? I'll tell Bibi he screwed up. Hokay?

 

[Vikrant]

I would have never guessed that destabilization of Syria would be beneficial for Israel. But I guess you live and learn.

 

[Hossfly]

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

Read more: Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers | The Daily Caller

Latest Newsmax poll.

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

Read more: Obama and his team contradict past statements on war powers | The Daily Caller

Latest Newsmax poll.

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream

Didn't obama say he would go anywhere the enemy is and take them out? Why isn't he hitting them in Syria?

It's time we join the Syrian government and end al qeuda foothold in Syria