Thousands shout for freedom in southern Syria

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-24-09-07-02

**filbert**

At the same time? Is this like that old chestnut about everyone in China jumping up and down at the same time?

**Andrew1975**

Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

No, don't get up. The French will take the lead here too.

**Andrew1975**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

No, don't get up. The French will take the lead here too.

Great. I feel so much better! If they lead that one how much will it cost the US this time?

They need an orkmoticon where he is throwing up!

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

No, don't get up. The French will take the lead here too.

Great. I feel so much better! If they lead that one how much will it cost the US this time?

...less?

**Andrew1975**

One could only hope! Based on past experience though...

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:One could only hope! Based on past experience though...

Past experiences? I'm honestly confused here.

Unless you're somehow blaming all previous US intervention on France.

**Andrew1975**

No not at all, just the ones that they were the leaders on.

I blame the Illuminati for the rest.

**ShumaGorath**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:Should I start the intervention countdown clock?

No, don't get up. The French will take the lead here too.

Great. I feel so much better! If they lead that one how much will it cost the US this time?

They need an orkmoticon where he is throwing up!

The military has yet to request additional funding for the mission in libya, that was just all out of standard budget. So at the moment it's cost all of nothing outside of what we had already payed them for. I hope you never hear about the concept of touch and goes, your head will explode.

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:No not at all, just the ones that they were the leaders on.

I blame the Illuminati for the rest.

It's okay kids, just play nice with the crazy man...

**Andrew1975**

The military has yet to request additional funding for the mission in libya, that was just all out of standard budget. So at the moment it's cost all of nothing outside of what we had already payed them for. I hope you never hear about the concept of touch and goes, your head will explode.

The military has yet to request additional funding for the mission in libya, yet. Fixed that for you

Money that could have been appropriated for other things though.

" I hope you never hear about the concept of touch and goes, your head will explode." Really, let's try to keep the flames low on this one. Do we need this one closed too!

**ShumaGorath**

The military has yet to request additional funding for the mission in libya, yet. Fixed that for you

We've also announced that we're dropping the lead role and pulling out some assets!

Money that could have been appropriated for other things though.

Like touch and goes!

" I hope you never hear about the concept of touch and goes, your head will explode." Really, let's try to keep the flames low on this one. Do we need this one closed too!

It's a relavant thing you should probably understand. Touch and goes are institutionalized military expenditure and waste specifically designed to help maintain their budgets. It's what happens when they don't have anything else to do. The military doesn't give the money back at the end of the year, it just fires off all it's ammo into the ground and uses up all it's fuel. Literally.

**Andrew1975**

It's a relavant thing you should probably understand. Touch and goes are institutionalized military expenditure and waste specifically designed to help maintain their budgets. It's what happens when they don't have anything else to do. The military doesn't give the money back at the end of the year, it just fires off all it's ammo into the ground and uses up all it's fuel. Literally.

I know that, even moving things there is an operational cost that is in the budget. The 100's of millions of dollars worth of tomahawk missiles would not be touch and go though. Even the crashed f-15 was figures into the budget, but it's still a resource lost.

Remember it's early in the budget cycle also.

**ShumaGorath**

I know that, even moving things there is an operational cost that is in the budget. The 100's of millions of dollars worth of tomahawk missiles would not be touch and go though. Even the crashed f-15 was figures into the budget, but it's still a resource lost.

Procurement is a portion of the budget. The Missiles fall under the same heading as the billions of rounds of ammo fired into the ground at the end of every year. The replacement of the missiles means they fire less 50 Cals into that pit. So long as they don't move to congress to request additional emergency funding (something they are likely to be refused in any case given the current political environment) then they won't be effecting the bottom line. The U.S. routinely conducts wargames of a bigger scale then this mission.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Money that could have been appropriated for other things though.

But it wasn't, so complaining about it now won't do any good.

**VermGho5t**

I was under the impression the F-15 was owned by the RAF. Not the US, since this bird has been retired already.

**ShumaGorath**

VermGho5t wrote:I was under the impression the F-15 was owned by the RAF. Not the US, since this bird has been retired already.

Still used in the carrier fleet unless I'm totally off base.

**VermGho5t**

I think you are. The F-15 was solely an Air Force based aircraft, if I'm not mistaken. I read an earlier report that it was a British asset, but this was obviously wrong. Also the plane was retired wasn't it? Why is it still being used?

**Andrew1975**

F-15 is air force and has no carrier ability. It is currently in service with many nations, but this one was USAF. They have not been retired and are still front line fighters. They are more than a match for 99% of fighters out there especially when combined with USAF pilot training. Sure F-22 has replaced it in many roles, but F-15's are still used. It would be too expensive to replace all F-15s with F-22s. The F-22 also is not as versatile.

Edit: Well before someone beats me up for it, it's versatile, just not efficient at most roles except air superiority. It can not carry enough ordinance to be an efficient multirole fighter.

But it wasn't, so complaining about it now won't do any good.

Just because an event has happened is not reason to discuss why. Besides I wasn't complaining, I was using it to prove that french interdiction costs US money, it may be money from a preexisting budget, but until the budget it up we will not really know the effects.

It is still very early in the budget cycle. The US has not stopped operations either. The middle east is looking very sporty right now, we will see if that budget lasts.

**Frazzled**

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4197d9c-5622-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HbjUD6i5

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4197d9c-5622-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1HbkNj6UK

Gates calls for Syrian forces to move aside
By FT reporters

Published: March 24 2011 15:13 | Last updated: March 24 2011 21:59

Syria should follow Egypt’s lead and the Syrian army should “empower a revolution”, Robert Gates, US secretary of defence, argued as thousands marched in a southern city.

Mr Gates made his comments – some of the toughest remarks to date by a US official about the rule of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president – on a day of further upheaval in the Middle East and beyond.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Editorial Comment: The Syrian revolt - Mar-24In depth: Middle East protests - Mar-22Gulf’s wealthy move more capital offshore - Mar-24Insurgents take control of Yemeni city - Mar-24Thousands march as Syria death toll rises - Mar-24Hamas declares Gaza emergency - Mar-24The White House signalled it was preparing for a change in power in Yemen, where it has been allied with the government of Ali Abdullah Saleh, president. Nato allies reached a deal in which the alliance will take over command of the Libyan no-fly zone, although responsibility for strikes on forces loyal to Col Muammer Gaddafi will not immediately come under the Nato umbrella.

Drawing a parallel between the unrest in Syria and the protests that unseated Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s former president, Mr Gates said: “I’ve just come from Egypt, where the Egyptian army stood on the sidelines and allowed people to demonstrate and in fact empowered a revolution. The Syrians might take a lesson from that.”

His comments came as thousands of people marched on Thursday in Deraa, southern Syria, where at least 44 people are now thought to have been killed in a week of protests, and as Mr Assad announced salary increases and promised greater freedom.

“I would say that what the Syrian government is confronting is in fact the same challenge that faces so many governments across the region, and that is the unmet political and economic grievances of their people,” Reuters quoted Mr Gates as saying during a trip to Israel.

The Obama administration has been careful to avoid the language of regime change when dealing with the Middle East and it was not clear if the White House shared Mr Gates’s sentiments.

Barack Obama, US president, has argued that the two key principles the US is backing are respect of universal rights and non-violence in dealing with protesters.

With the exception of the case of Col Gaddafi, the US has not explicitly called for any of the Arab world’s leaders to leave office. The administration insists it is popular will, rather than the US’s opinion, that should determine the fate of the Arab world’s leaders, while maintaining alliances with strategically important countries.

On Thursday, Washington signalled it was ready to deal with a new government in Yemen in the event of Mr Saleh’s departure.

“We do not build our policy in any country around a single person,” said Jay Carney, White House press secretary. “And we obviously will look forward to having a solid relationship with the leader of Yemen.”

The White House said it strongly condemned “the Syrian government’s “brutal repression of demonstrations.”

In Syria, after days of protests and bloodshed, angry crowds turned out for the latest funerals in Deraa amid a huge security presence. Witnesses heard chants of “The blood of our martyrs is not spilt in waste!” and “God, Syria, freedom!”

Officials at the main hospital in Deraa have reported receiving 37 bodies, according to Reuters.

More FT videoMr Gates, while in Egypt, had called on the Egyptian authorities to give new political forces more time to organise as the country takes its first steps towards democracy.

Egypt is due to hold parliamentary elections in September, but the young political activists who launched the revolution have been pressing for a longer transition to allow them to organise. Politicians and analysts say only the Muslim Brotherhood opposition and remnants of Mr Mubarak’s National Democratic Party are sufficiently prepared for elections.

While not openly calling for the elections to be postponed, Mr Gates said: “It is important to allow those new elements that have become active in Egyptian politics – some of them, for the first time – to have the time to develop political parties … so they can play the same kind of leading role in Egypt in the future that they played in bringing about this change in the first place.”

The US official was in Cairo for talks with Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the defence minister and head of the Supreme Military Council which has been running the country since the fall of the Mubarak regime.

Mr Gates praised Field Marshal Tantawi and the Egyptian military for refusing to use violence against protesters during the uprising.

“He told me the army would protect the people,” said Mr Gates. “And in everything that ensued, he and the army kept their word.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Modquisition on. Warnings have been sent. Keep it polite people.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Just because an event has happened is not reason to discuss why. Besides I wasn't complaining,

But you weren't discussing why it happened, you were discussing what might happen.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I was using it to prove that french interdiction costs US money, it may be money from a preexisting budget, but until the budget it up we will not really know the effects.

You have yet to offer an argument that indicates that French intervention costs the US money. You're missing the component of the argument that shows how the French are able to exercise direct control over the United States military, and, really, you won't find one because none exists.

What you have offered evidence for is that, in this situation, two states with mutual interests in a given conflict will often both participate in that conflict, and that their mutual interests might strengthen the resolve of both states to engage. However, no matter how much influence one state might have over another, the responsibility for a given decision to participate in an intervention falls on the state that commits its resources.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It is still very early in the budget cycle. The US has not stopped operations either. The middle east is looking very sporty right now, we will see if that budget lasts.

That's all irrelevant. The point that Shuma made was that the current operation has not required funding in excess of that which is allocated. Other subsequent operations might require such funding, and this operation might as well, but up until now this operation has not.

You can't make an argument from events that have not happened yet, if you're talking about why event X happened.

**Lord Scythican**

Man this stuff is coming out of the woodwork. WW III any day now.

**Andrew1975**

dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Just because an event has happened is not reason to discuss why. Besides I wasn't complaining,

But you weren't discussing why it happened, you were discussing what might happen.

Sure I was. I was discussing why the US has used military money to support an interdiction that was lead by french saber rattling, and why even though they did the rattling the US is doing the Heavy lifting. It is questionable that the US would have entered this theater if not for France's lead, which the British followed, followed by the US.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I was using it to prove that french interdiction costs US money, it may be money from a preexisting budget, but until the budget it up we will not really know the effects.

You have yet to offer an argument that indicates that French intervention costs the US money. You're missing the component of the argument that shows how the French are able to exercise direct control over the United States military, and, really, you won't find one because none exists.

What you have offered evidence for is that, in this situation, two states with mutual interests in a given conflict will often both participate in that conflict, and that their mutual interests might strengthen the resolve of both states to engage. However, no matter how much influence one state might have over another, the responsibility for a given decision to participate in an intervention falls on the state that commits its resources.

**Boba Fex**

Thousands shout for freedom in southern Syria

is that like she sells sea shells down by the sea shore?

Sorry, that was bad.
The aircraft in question was an F-15E Strike Eagle, a two-seater ground-attack variant that's still very much in operational service.
http://defensetech.org/2011/03/22/rumint-photo-of-the-strike-eagle-that-crashed/
and
http://defensetech.org/2011/03/22/great-video-of-strike-eagle-crash-site/
A lot of my friends and co-workers are all discussing the situation in Libya, the one big thing we all agree is that the Air Force has pretty much spent all the money we were trying to save with all the force-shaping they just did. That, and we'll be wrapped up in Libya before they ever get a chance to send in the nice, pretty F-22s.

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:Obviously France didn't force anyone into this or Vietnam. The US also never forced anyone into the GUlf, but we sure get the blame for that one, or should I say those two.

Doesn't work like that.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure I was. I was discussing why the US has used military money to support an interdiction that was lead by french saber rattling, and why even though they did the rattling the US is doing the Heavy lifting. It is questionable that the US would have entered this theater if not for France's lead, which the British followed, followed by the US.

You said none of that until right now, with the exception of the "blame France" part, which basically ignores all the various interpersonal and interorganizational discourse that goes on during the lead in to any military action that involves the interests of multiple states.

And sure, one can question whether or not the US would have entered into the conflict without France taking the first step, but that's idle speculation for which you cannot generate proof. If you want to discuss something of substance, then you have to discuss what actually happened, which involves far more than simply saying "the French did it".

Of course, realistically, we're far to close to the event itself to actually have a meaningful discussion regarding its immediate causes, as those will be shrouded by classification and the like.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Obviously France didn't force anyone into this or Vietnam. The US also never forced anyone into the GUlf, but we sure get the blame for that one, or should I say those two.

We don't get any blame for the first Gulf War, at least I've never heard anyone make that claim.

The Second Gulf War isn't comparable to the Libya issue, as in one case we have a domestic event (the Libyan riots) precipitating an international response from multiple nations. Contrast Iraq where the United States suffered a terrorist strike, and subsequently begins to discuss the invasion of Iraq despite any explicit change in the domestic activity of that nation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Fine, is it better to say it alotted money from a preexisting budget that did not necessarily for see this conflict? The plain facts are that those missiles cost money, the F-15 cost money, just because there is a budget doesn't mean that resources should be squandered in a mission of support that has turned into a lead role position. Especially when there appears to be little or no strategy except status quo.

The only fact that you have correct is the one regarding the expenditure of resources. The mission is still one of support, just as it has always been; no ground troops have been committed. Even if you're referencing the idea that the US is no coordinating the activity there your statement is irrelevant, as that particular change has an infinitesimal effect on the cost of intervention; note that no additional US forces have been committed to the conflict since command was turned over to the US apparatus.

In any case, as I've said before, flying air cover for a prolonged period of time is an acceptable strategy for indirect regime change as it requires no material commitment to the ground, and can thus be withdrawn at will.

**Andrew1975**

dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure I was. I was discussing why the US has used military money to support an interdiction that was lead by french saber rattling, and why even though they did the rattling the US is doing the Heavy lifting. It is questionable that the US would have entered this theater if not for France's lead, which the British followed, followed by the US.

You said none of that until right now, with the exception of the "blame France" part, which basically ignores all the various interpersonal and interorganizational discourse that goes on during the lead in to any military action that involves the interests of multiple states.

And sure, one can question whether or not the US would have entered into the conflict without France taking the first step, but that's idle speculation for which you cannot generate proof. If you want to discuss something of substance, then you have to discuss what actually happened, which involves far more than simply saying "the French did it".

Of course, realistically, we're far to close to the event itself to actually have a meaningful discussion regarding its immediate causes, as those will be shrouded by classification and the like.

I did say that, i just spelled it out more in the above sentence.

**Luco**

I kinda wonder if this is what the late 1700's was like had there been tv and faster communications. Faster reporting, faster revolts

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:Really because 911 is a retaliation for troops being in the gulf during the first gulf war. I would consider that blame.

Wouldn't this be about the history of Afghanistan?