McCain Invades Syria to Back Rebels

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.

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

The Ukranian government would like to remind you that Tartus isn't Russia's only foreign, naval port.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

Are you saying you feel like the people of Zimbabwe are your brothers and sisters? Because I'm fairly certain the majority of people in Zimbabwe would not claim that an Englishman living in the US is their brother. I'm also fairly certain that African nations have a long history of "swapping of one evil for another."

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So pointing out a factual inaccuracy in your statement is now showing disrespect to those that died in the Civil War? Surely it is more disrespectful to use their sacrifices as a platform for an ill advised intervention

If you had bothered to show a factual inaccuracy, perhaps, but you didn't, and haven't, thus far. You simply said it wasn't true, and are continuing to insist on it despite not actually offering any proof of your position. .Please prove that the Civil War was not about slavery before you continue in this vein. And further, saying that Americans have given their lives in the past in the name freedom and doing the right thing as a counterpoint to your argument that the US should only go to war if it directly profits the US is hardy disrespectful.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you manged to take a series of incidents carried out by the FSA, and reduced them to the one that you could almost-sort-of counter. Hardly an indication of wanting an honest discussion.

Nice utter failure to address or even acknowledge my point and instead launch a personal attack.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Don't wonder, just say it.
And you completely omitted the Al-Nursa group, which is unfortunate because I've mentioned them several times before

You're giving the impression that you pick and choose what suits your argument rather than even attempt to be objective

Well, first of all, those are the groups affiliated with AQ and Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebenon. Which is where I was talking about. As far as them gaining ground in Syrai, yes, they are. The reason is simple: they're well supplied, and generally, they're winning the engagements they fight. So, yes, FSA commanders are losing men to Jabhat al-Nusra because they want to win and none of the other rebel groups are getting the sort of major backing that Jabhat al-Nusra is. Again, the cost of doing nothing. It's a self fulfilling prophecy: we won't support the rebels because they might support Islamists, so they're getting their ass handed to them and joining the Islamists.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What "positive counter balance" do you think would work given that many Muslim countries embrace their faith as the guiding principals of their law

And abandoning the ones that don't have popular support like Syria and Lebanon is a good way to make sure they do too.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Correct, and thank you for proving my point. I gave many examples and you chose two to paint my argument in the worst light.

Perhaps if they were nto the two you keep coming back to over and over again with seaward, I wouldn't have highlighted them.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here. But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause. Not to shore up AQ militias, or a largely incompetent rabble

Yes, well, if we had supplied them and sent military advisers when it would have had an impact, they wouldn't be AQ or a largely incompetent rabble. 'We can't become involved becasue they might embrace an islamist agenda'. Yeah,well, now look, we didn't and they are anyway. So rather than deal wit the problem before it became one, the US now gets to invade them at some later date when they start attacking Americans after they become a thoroughly entrenched military force, or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Lets see - Assad retains power, he does what most dictators do and deals with dissent. We start sanctions and write him a strongly worded letter. AQ affiliated militas don't get to set up camp and work on de-stabilising the region, or planning attacks against us, they don't get access to heavier weapons, and they lose a lot of support and fighters from the conflict.
What ramifications are you seeing for the region and the world?

Never occurs to Dread here to wonder why Hezbollah and Iran are helping Assad. Syria is Iran's major funnel for Russian nuclear tech. AQ is bad, sure. Hezbollah with an Iranian nuclear device? Much worse.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
If you had bothered to show a factual inaccuracy, perhaps, but you didn't, and haven't, thus far. You simply said it wasn't true, and are continuing to insist on it despite not actually offering any proof of your position. .Please prove that the Civil War was not about slavery before you continue in this vein. And further, saying that Americans have given their lives in the past in the name freedom and doing the right thing as a counterpoint to your argument that the US should only go to war if it directly profits the US is hardy disrespectful.

For such a scholar of the Civil War I'm surprised that you need me to expand upon, what should have been, a very obvious statement
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes-american-civil-war.htm

A common assumption to explain the cause of the American Civil War was that the North was no longer willing to tolerate slavery as being part of the fabric of US society and that the political power brokers in Washington were planning to abolish slavery throughout the Union. Therefore for many people slavery is the key issue to explain the causes of the American Civil War. However, it is not as simple as this and slavery, while a major issue, was not the only issue that pushed American into the ‘Great American Tragedy’. By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.

By 1860 America could not be seen as being a homogenous society. Clearly defined areas could be identified that had different outlooks and different values. This was later to be seen in the North versus South divide that created the two sides in the war.

The South was an agricultural region where cotton and tobacco were the main backbone to the region’s economic strength. The area relied on exports to markets in Western Europe and the class structure that could be found in the UK, for example, was mimicked in the southern states. The local plantation owner was a ‘king’ within his own area and locals would be deferential towards such men. The whole structure was portrayed in ‘Gone With The Wind’; a strictly Christian society that had men at the top while those underneath were expected and required to accept their social status. Social advancement was possible but invariably it was done within the senior families of a state, who were the economic, political and legal brokers of their state on behalf of the people in that state. Within this structure was the wealth that these families had accrued. It cannot be denied that a huge part of this wealth came from the fact that the plantation owners oriented the work on their plantations around slave labour. As abhorrent as it may be to those in the C21st, slavery was simply seen as part of the southern way of life. Without slavery, the economic clout of these premier families would have been seriously dented and those they employed and paid – local people who would have recognised how important the local plantation owner was to their own well-being – simply accepted this as ‘how it is’. When the dark clouds of war gathered in 1860-61, many in the South saw their very way of life being threatened. Part of that was slavery but it was not the only part.

The North was almost in complete contrast to the South. In the lead up to April 1861, the North was industrialising at a very fast rate. Entrepreneurs were accepted and, in fact, were seen as being vital to the further industrial development of America. You did not have to stay in your social place and social mobility was common. For example, Samuel Colt was born in Connecticut into a relatively poor background. He had an inauspicious start to his life but ended up a very rich man who left his wife $15 million in his will. Whether he could have done this in the South is a moot topic. It was always possible but most of America’s premier entrepreneurs based themselves in the North where the straitjacket of social class was weaker. Cornelius Vanderbilt is another example. Whether a man who came from the Netherlands could have forced his way into the social hierarchy of the South is again a question open to debate. The North was also a cosmopolitan mixture of nationalities and religions – far more so than the South. There can be little doubt that there were important groups in the North that were anti-slavery and wanted its abolition throughout the Union. However, there were also groups that were ambivalent and those who knew that the North’s economic development was based not only on entrepreneurial skills but also on the input of poorly paid workers who were not slaves but lived lives not totally removed from those in the South. While they had their freedom and were paid, their lifestyle was at best very harsh.

While the two sides that made up the American Civil War were apart in many areas, it became worse when the perception in the South was that the North would try to impose its values on the South.

In 1832, South Carolina passed an act that declared that Federal tariff legislation of 1828 and 1832 could not be enforced onto states and that after February 1st 1833 the tariffs would not be recognised in the state. This brought South Carolina into direct conflict with the Federal government in Washington DC. Congress pushed through the Force Bill that enabled the President to use military force to bring any state into line with regards to implementing Federal law. On this occasion the threat of military force worked. People in South Carolina vowed, however, it would be the last time.

It was now that slavery became mixed up with state rights – just how much power a state had compared to federal authority. State rights became intermingled with slavery. The key issue was whether slavery would be allowed in the newly created states that were joining the Union. This dispute further developed with the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ of 1803 whereby Kansas, among others, was purchased by the federal government. Kansas was officially opened to settlement in 1854 and there was a rush to settle in the state between those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. The state became a place of violence between the two groups and Kansas got the nickname ‘Bleeding Kansas’ in recognition of what was going on there. However on January 29th 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a slave-free state. Many in the traditional slave states saw this as the first step towards abolishing slavery throughout the Union and thus the destruction of the southern way of life.

When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20th 1860, the first state to do so, it was a sign that the state no longer felt part of the United States of America and that America as an entity was being dominated by a federal government ensconced in the views of the North. Whether this was true or not, is not relevant as it was felt to be true by many South Carolinians. The secession of South Carolina pushed other southern states into doing the same. With such a background of distrust between most southern states and the government in Washington, it only needed one incident to set off a civil war and that occurred at Fort Sumter in April 1861.

So we have slavery, state v federal rights and economic issues. So no, it was not just about morality and slavery.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Nice utter failure to address or even acknowledge my point and instead launch a personal attack.

There was no personal attack. Just a clear statement that you hardly give the impression of wanting an honest discussion by distorting an opposing argument to further your own.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, first of all, those are the groups affiliated with AQ and Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebenon. Which is where I was talking about. As far as them gaining ground in Syrai, yes, they are. The reason is simple: they're well supplied, and generally, they're winning the engagements they fight. So, yes, FSA commanders are losing men to Jabhat al-Nusra because they want to win and none of the other rebel groups are getting the sort of major backing that Jabhat al-Nusra is. Again, the cost of doing nothing. It's a self fulfilling prophecy: we won't support the rebels because they might support Islamists, so they're getting their ass handed to them and joining the Islamists.

Still waiting to hear why you think "Syria" was being mentioned so much.
So you do know about Al-Nursa and were just ignoring them because it didn't suit your argument. Do you think that this could be a reason for my saying that you are perhaps not giving an impression of honest discussion?
I'm waiting to hear about how moral it is to support people suspected of using chemical weapons, who shell civilians and who slit the throats of their captives. I'd be much more interested in hearing that than your circular argument about the rebels.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And abandoning the ones that don't have popular support like Syria and Lebanon is a good way to make sure they do too.

You haven't said what counter balance you intend to establish to counter Sharia emerging in a non-Assad ruled Syria

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, well, if we had supplied them and sent military advisers when it would have had an impact, they wouldn't be AQ or a largely incompetent rabble. 'We can't become involved becasue they might embrace an islamist agenda'. Yeah,well, now look, we didn't and they are anyway. So rather than deal wit the problem before it became one, the US now gets to invade them at some later date when they start attacking Americans after they become a thoroughly entrenched military force, or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.

Your desire to live in the past and endlessly speculate on what we could have done could be academically interesting, but doesn't change what has happened. You seem to be basing your view of what will happen to Syria is that Assad will be replaced, when right now that really doesn't look like the case.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Never occurs to Dread here to wonder why Hezbollah and Iran are helping Assad. Syria is Iran's major funnel for Russian nuclear tech. AQ is bad, sure. Hezbollah with an Iranian nuclear device? Much worse.

So you ignore my question, and instead try to deflect with one of your own? Again, not the hallmark of honest debate.
The short answer is that Iran has few allies in the region. Every time there is a report of them making military advancements it promotes a flurry of other Middle Eastern states buying weapons from the US. Syria is a very useful buffer, and it lets them supply Hezbollah to attack Israel. Without Syria as an ally Iran looks very isolated in the region and has her standing reduced.
Let's see;
- AQ, a global terrorist group targeting Western interests and with a propensity to stage spectacular attacks.
- Hezbollah, a regional terrorist group that does not have the same impact on the global stage. Used by Iran as proxies in the region against Israel.
Now should Hezbollah get a nuclear device (and we're going to ignore the consequences for Iran of supplying it for now) and detonate it in Israel what would happen with the blast itself, and the fallout, in a densely populated area of the world, surrounded by Muslim countries, in an area with limited sources of fresh water. The short answer is that Hezbollah and their paymasters Iran have now stuck a very large target on themselves, that both the West and many Middle Eastern countries would be grateful to use as target practice.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So we have slavery, state v federal rights and economic issues. So no, it was not just about morality and slavery.

Please learn to read.

BaronIveagh wrote:
While there were a great many reasons, almost all of them are related in one way or another to the question of slavery.

Which your article more or less confirmed. It was however, the primary cause, and became directly linked to the to other two almost 30 years earlier.. And if you doubt that the people at the time felt it was the central issue, here's an excerpt from South Carolina's reasons for secession:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. " - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you do know about Al-Nursa and were just ignoring them because it didn't suit your argument.

No, it wad because I was discussing Lebanon which, as some posters may know, is a separate country from Syria, but since you brought up Lebanon, and how 'AQ friendly' it is, I thought some actual information as opposed to broad implications was in order. As far as 'why I see Syria again and again' is because the problem is spreading to other neighboring countries.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm waiting to hear about how moral it is to support people suspected of using chemical weapons, who shell civilians and who slit the throats of their captives. I'd be much more interested in hearing that than your circular argument about the rebels.

Because all we have is a pile of dead bodies and an accusation by the Syrian government that the Rebels did it. (Another thing dictators do, you might recall, if kill their own people and blame someone else). Further, by the same logic you are applying, the US military is composed of rapists and murderers because a few guys went around the bend in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And you STILL have not addressed my point, being the longer this goes on, the more extreme things will get.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You haven't said what counter balance you intend to establish to counter Sharia emerging in a non-Assad ruled Syria

Judging from what I've read recently, the best option is no longer possible, which was funding and supporting the more secular rebel groups. Personally it looks like we're past that tipping point, and all will reap the fruits of inaction.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Your desire to live in the past and endlessly speculate on what we could have done could be academically interesting, but doesn't change what has happened. You seem to be basing your view of what will happen to Syria is that Assad will be replaced, when right now that really doesn't look like the case.

You clearly failed to read the second outcome I posted there.

BaronIveagh wrote:
...or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.

Not grasping the obvious are we: Assad loses without western involvment, you now have your AQ friendly Syria. Assad Wins without Western Involvement, an you now have an ally for Iran AND a massive jump in the international terrorist population in the form of former Syrian rebels. Doing nothing is lose/lose.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you ignore my question, and instead try to deflect with one of your own? Again, not the hallmark of honest debate.

From someone who's done nothing but ignore any of my points and pursued any tangent he could, you have no room to talk.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now should Hezbollah get a nuclear device (and we're going to ignore the consequences for Iran of supplying it for now) and detonate it in Israel what would happen with the blast itself, and the fallout, in a densely populated area of the world, surrounded by Muslim countries, in an area with limited sources of fresh water. The short answer is that Hezbollah and their paymasters Iran have now stuck a very large target on themselves, that both the West and many Middle Eastern countries would be grateful to use as target practice.

Well, first of all, it depends on the bomb, it's size, etc. The fallout from a ground level to 500 foot airburst of a 200 pound 1kt tac nuke (the size Hezbollah would be most interested in as it's very portable) in Jerusalem, for example, wouldn't even reach Gaza on a day with a moderate east to west wind. Most of it would blow out to sea.

Second, please consider the idea of a nuclear power forced into a defensive position against an invader.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
snip

With the greatest of respect I have read your post, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to deal with distortions, misrepresentations and inaccuracies you have posted. It is quite clear that our opinions, and how we communicate them are vastly different. I cannot see anything productive in further responding to you in this thread.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dogma wrote:

Are you saying you feel like the people of Zimbabwe are your brothers and sisters? Because I'm fairly certain the majority of people in Zimbabwe would not claim that an Englishman living in the US is their brother. I'm also fairly certain that African nations have a long history of "swapping of one evil for another."

I'm saying that if we'd put as much blood, sweat and tears into taking Mugabe out of the 'breadbasket of Africa', I believe we'd have seen a better return on our involvement and a stronger likelihood of a stable nation of people with an improved lot, a beneficial influence on the surrounding nations and less chance of viewing the West as some form of supernatural foe to be defeated to earn a place in heaven.

And the brother and sister reference was to keeping the troubles of the middle eastern islamic nations to being sorted out by other islamic nations, because it is frequently touted that the greatest affront, the reason for 'holy war', is that the US and UK etc are infidel nations meddling in islamic affairs, so leave them to settle it in house.

**Jihadin**

Jebus...some of you all wanting to get involve.......isn't there another country....that doesn't involve MUSLIMS...we, as in the US and EU, can invade and corrupt their young of age ladies...and men....I hear Rio De Jeniro is having major social economic problems....we can be Peace Keepers in Argentina...you know...to keep the British out...hey...looky here...a british contingent at the bar with us....Okay....keep the French military out....except the French Foreign Legion. To those who hasn't dealt with them...you need to find a way...to those of us that has.....I trust them with my back

edit
Serious note. By the time the US Gov't decides who to arm. Assad forces will be closing in on the last few rebel positions that's left in Syria. Good side of that. At least its Assad we're dealing with as a known entity and where he stands. Not a Rebel Leader with ties to AQ (possible) with no idea where he is going to "jump" Also we don't have to breakdown his Air Defense system to establish a "No Fly" zone and also have a possible face off with a Russian fighter and US fighter.

**Seaward**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
We aren't walking on egg shells not to p*ss them off. We're avoiding getting into another prolonged conflict that will be a financial mill stone around our necks, which the Russians can prolong, because all that does is weaken us and strengthen our enemies.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the nature, duration, and cost of our involvement that simply don't necessarily reflect reality, I'm afraid.

If you are trying to base geo-political ideas off the relationships between jocks and geeks in 80's movies then I'm really not sure what else I can do to move this debate along. So do we have to get involved, or can we have an 80's montage instead?

To be honest, I was trying to put it into terms that'd be easy to understand, since much of the larger implications of the Syrian situation seem to be difficult to grasp for some reason.

Lets see your examples

For success stories where we directly had a hand in changing the regime? Turkey's the best example, of course, dating back to the coup in the 80s, but the Palestinian Authority's another one. For examples where we have made regimes friendly to our interest through a variety of methods, they're pretty extensive. Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt for many, many years before the fall, the UAE, and so on.

If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here.

Perhaps try responding to the entire sentence, rather than the strawman you chose to pick out of it.

But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause.

Oh dear. If you genuinely believe that's the economic situation we're in, I'm not sure there would be much point in continuing this discussion.

So your suggestion on how to intervene in a conflict that is mainly close quarters urban warfare, with minimal Syrian air support, is to target their airfields? You'll forgive my obvious skepticism for the odds of that plan working.
The problem as well is that it doesn't matter how clean the strikes are, we'll only ever hear about the ones that aren't clean. And with a war-weary public wary of any intervention how long will it be before there are serious calls to pull out?

This is another of those situations where I feel you may be holding perceptions - Syrian air power has played no significant role in the conflict - that stand at odds with reality.

As for calls by our own public to get out...in an air campaign? Really? The same pacifists who object to drone strikes will make that call immediately, of course, with the same effect. Air wars are entirely different than ground wars. We won't be losing thousands of men, and the American public will be largely indifferent, as it has to all of our other no-fly zone antics in the past.

**BaronIveagh**

Jihadin wrote:
To those who hasn't dealt with them...you need to find a way...to those of us that has.....I trust them with my back

You can trust them with mission and your life
but never your wallet or your wife.

And if you didn't like the Middle East, you REALLY won't like South America. It has all the downsides of the Middle East, minus religious warfare, plus humidity, a veritable witches brew of diseases both known and unknown, some of the densest terrain you will ever imagine, even in the mountains, deadly wildlife including but not limited to: leeches the size of your arm, snakes bigger than your thigh, every form of blood sucking, poisonous, vermin known and unknown to man, crocodiles, piranha, and FARC.

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
To those who hasn't dealt with them...you need to find a way...to those of us that has.....I trust them with my back

You can trust them with mission and your life
but never your wallet or your wife.

And if you didn't like the Middle East, you REALLY won't like South America. It has all the downsides of the Middle East, minus religious warfare, plus humidity, a veritable witches brew of diseases both known and unknown, some of the densest terrain you will ever imagine, even in the mountains, deadly wildlife including but not limited to: leeches the size of your arm, snakes bigger than your thigh, every form of blood sucking, poisonous, vermin known and unknown to man, crocodiles, piranha, and FARC.

Thats just in the north, near the equator. South America is highly developed, and will surpass Europe in just a few years. Frankly its much more important to US interests then Europe, as it should.

Manifest Destiny II, This Time its Vertical!

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22861571

Syrian rebels and activists have condemned the killing of a 14-year-old boy, allegedly by al-Qaeda-linked fighters who accused him of blasphemy.

Residents of the northern city of Aleppo say Mohammad Qataa was shot dead after being accused of misusing the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

A spokesman for the main rebel grouping, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), called it an act of "terrorism".

Louay Meqdad stressed that those responsible were not linked to the FSA.

The killing had "no justification" and those responsible should hand themselves over to the "legitimate authorities" in Aleppo, Mr Meqdad told the Al-Jazeera TV station.

A statement from the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCC), a network of activists inside Syria, called the killing a "heinous crime" and said those responsible must face justice.

The LCC said it also held the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the umbrella group for the Istanbul-based opposition, responsible "for failing to manage liberated areas and maintaining the security of its citizens".

'Blasphemy' accusation
Mohammad Qataa was reportedly selling coffee on the street on Sunday when someone asked to buy some on credit.

He is said to have replied: "Even if Muhammad came down from heaven, I would not give you this coffee on credit."

According to one account, three men - one of whom had been the man who asked for the coffee - declared that he had committed blasphemy by insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Mohammad was taken away in a car and was returned half an hour later too badly beaten to walk.

Witnesses say he was then thrown on the pavement and shot dead.

A crowd of men and the boy's mother were all present but were too scared to intervene, reports say.

The UK-based activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) posted videos of Mohammad's parents and another eyewitness to the killing.

The parents said that one of the men was from Aleppo, but they others spoke standard Arabic, suggesting they may not be Syrian.

The FSA and the SOHR have both blamed the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, a group which was the result of a merger between Al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq and some Syrian Islamist militants.

The mood in Aleppo has changed since the beginning of the year when inhabitants compared Islamist brigades favourably to the FSA, which was was often perceived as corrupt, the BBC's Paul Wood reports.

Now there are signs of discontent in the city against the Islamists, he says.

**whembly**

So... any claims of "Wag the Dog" yet?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
So... any claims of "Wag the Dog" yet?

Funny you say that when that article contains a lot of advice from the last President accused of that tactic

I'm genuinely curious as to what the White House decides to do in respect of this.

**Noble713**

Seaward wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause.

Oh dear. If you genuinely believe that's the economic situation we're in, I'm not sure there would be much point in continuing this discussion.

Not to derail the thread on a tangent about economics, but yes, the economic situation of the US and the fiscal situation of the government (at all levels, Federal/state/local) is tenuous and getting worse. Our unfunded liabilities are gigantic, the population has slid into poverty, and only the Federal Reserve's habit of inventing $85 billion of new money every month is in any way papering over the problems. Will the US go bankrupt tomorrow if we spend some money on Syria? No. Will such discretionary war spending increase the likelihood of a default and/or hyperinflation within the next 5 years? Absolutely.

In other news, Iran is sending a brigade-size element to reinforce the Syrian government:

Russia Today
Iran will deploy 4,000 Revolutionary Guards to Syria to bolster Damascus against a mostly Sunni-led insurgency, media reported. Meanwhile, US F-16s and Patriots will stay in Jordan – speculatively, to help establish a no-fly zone to aid Syrian rebels.

The deployment of the first several-thousand strong military contingent was reported by The Independent on Sunday who quoted Iranian sources tied to the state’s security apparatus. The sources said the move signals Iran’s intention to drastically step up its efforts to preserve the government of President Bashar Assad.

The Islamic Republic’s heightened military commitment could reportedly extend to the opening up of a new “Syrian” front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

......

Hezbollah, the Shia Islamist militant group based out of Lebanon, played an integral part in the recapture of the strategic city of Qusayr last week. Damascus announced its intentions to use the Qusayr victory as a stepping stone to retaking large swaths of the northern city of Aleppo and surrounding provinces.

.......
Some 2,000 of Hezbollah’s 65,000 strong force has reportedly been operating in the city since early June. Shortly after these reports emerged, the New York Times rolled out an article saying Israel accelerated planning for a “shock and awe” campaign to wipe out Hezbollah forces out of Syria.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s condemnation of Hezbollah’s “blatant interference” in the Syrian conflict, a report issued by Intelligence Online in January said that Saudi Arabia was directly responsible for the radical al-Nusra Front’s very existence and operational superiority within the country. [u][emphasis mine]

**KalashnikovMarine**

Oh yes, this is going to end well.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Daily Mail is reporting that since the fall of Gaddafi, over a million tonnes of weapons and ammo (including 3,000 surface to air missiles) has gone missing. Mali springs to mind.

British Generals (we can't afford that many

) have warned that Syria could end up as another supermarket for any old terrorist looking to tool up.

And we want to throw more weapons into the mix? I wish politicians would be honest and cut out the democracy BS and tell the truth: in these tough economic times, selling weapons ensures jobs.

**Frazzled**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
So... any claims of "Wag the Dog" yet?

oh yea

**Jihadin**

Lets not forget which I hope Obama and crew haven't forgotten either......or lose the frame of mind further down this "goat rope" of a situation. Russia has supplied Syria with top shelf SAM missiles. Not ManPacks but actual SAM missiles...which I wouldn't be at all surprise is the type of missile that was used to nail the Turkey F4 that was what?.....hundred feet off the ocean surface.....that beat out its ALQ133.....

**djones520**

Jihadin wrote:
Lets not forget which I hope Obama and crew haven't forgotten either......or lose the frame of mind further down this "goat rope" of a situation. Russia has supplied Syria with top shelf SAM missiles. Not ManPacks but actual SAM missiles...which I wouldn't be at all surprise is the type of missile that was used to nail the Turkey F4 that was what?.....hundred feet off the ocean surface.....that beat out its ALQ133.....

Great opportunity for the F-22 to pop its cherry.

**Jihadin**

Same was said about the F-117 in Bosnia....which the Russian studied....and the current version of the SA300 is 2004...so the missile system was built with stealth in mind. Don't get me wrong now. I'm not cheering on the "bad" guy. I just don't a "US pilot" to be "That Guy" to find out how effective that missile system is

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
Same was said about the F-117 in Bosnia....which the Russian studied....and the current version of the SA300 is 2004...so the missile system was built with stealth in mind. Don't get me wrong now. I'm not cheering on the "bad" guy. I just don't a "US pilot" to be "That Guy" to find out how effective that missile system is

It's not like they downed the fleet.

The Russians study our stuff, but we study theirs. We know how to defeat an air defense network. Even a Russian one run by Syrians.

**Jihadin**

Yet a F117 Stealth Fighter. Top of the line fighter was knocked out the air by an individual who thought to have three Russian SAM sites ping a certain area and came up with a firing solution. All three missiles went into the blind and detonated by proximity knocking out the F117. Its not just the gear and the equipment. Its the individual who can think the fastest to get to laugh last that wins. The ALQ133 burns out the optics of the missile in heat seeking mode. The SA 300 missile has the ability to flip to Ultraviolet mode and looks for the biggest black hole in the sky. All it would take is to knock out what....say....three F22 to hurt the US financialy....loss of some aircraft plus the US supplying the fuel and Air to Ground Missile for the Coalition Force would make a grand public display of our pilots if they're captured on ground. We have to pass the torch to whatever Euro nation that wants the lead.....I think Germany is not behind this either. Stop focusing on the combat but take into account the overall effort and the potential of it going down hill for the US. Assad knows how to hurt us. Gawd forbid if one of our Aircraft Carrier gets within range of his Anti-ship missiles. Saturate the target with isiles and something going to go "BOOM". Not a lot of room to move around the Med. Lets also take into account the possibility of some idioit putting a missile into the Russian Naval Base worst case or flying to damn close to the Russian naval base that next thing we know. We have a Russian fighter wing right by the base.....we can go on for hours about this. No plan is 110% fool proof for no plan stay intact when rounds start flying. Obama dragging feet on this and Assad has a deadline now. Aleppo within two weeks will be in Assad hands......any other Rebel strong holds after that?

**Seaward**

I personally think you're giving the SA-10 a little too much credit, but hey. If it's your concern, rest assured that even Europeans you wouldn't consider to be traditional air powers flying fourth-gen equipment can suppress it fairly effectively. Nobody else in the world has our SEAD capabilities. Syria's network is good, but it's not the immortal dragon it's being made out to be, and if a carrier group suddenly lost its collective mind and managed to get nailed by SSMs, we'd likely have bigger problems, such as needing to send an HVAC crew down to Hell to reset the thermostat and the like. Saturation's not a bad tactic to try, but we've got a few tricks up our sleeve to deal with it, and I honestly don't think the Syrians possess the capability to do it in the numbers they'd need to. The Syrians also don't have the SS-N-27, which is about the only thing we'd truly need to be worried about - assuming that we remember how to intercept air threats before they get within the envelope, which I think's a safe bet.

You're right, though, that we'd lose some aircraft, maybe even as many as ten. If we're going to avoid conflict anytime we might end up taking casualties, though, we might as well zero out the DOD budget now. I made the argument earlier in this thread why I think it would have been beneficial to our national interest to intervene, but as you rightly pointed out, it's now entirely moot.

We won't be establishing a no-fly, and the rebellion's already broken. Aleppo's going to fall, and as you quite rightly pointed out, once it does, that's the ballgame.

**Jihadin**

SA 300

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
SA 300

You'll have to help me out on that one. I've never heard of it.

I've heard of the S-300, which has the NATO reporting designation of SA-10 (and I think its moniker is "Grubber" or something like that).

**sebster**

Noble713 wrote:
Not to derail the thread on a tangent about economics, but yes, the economic situation of the US and the fiscal situation of the government (at all levels, Federal/state/local) is tenuous and getting worse. Our unfunded liabilities are gigantic, the population has slid into poverty, and only the Federal Reserve's habit of inventing $85 billion of new money every month is in any way papering over the problems.

That's all just junk economics. Total nonsense from... well from a blog that leads off with a Fight Club quote.

Insisting that debt should include future liabilities, ie how much will be paid in pensions and the like in the future, but not considering how much will be earned in tax revenues to pay for those, is just moonbat crazy. It's like insisting that a homeowner is bankrupt because the amount they'll pay in interest on their mortgage next year is more than they've got in their savings account, and for some reason we aren't allowed to consider that they'll earn money from their job over the course of the year.

And trying to describe quantitative easing as papering over problems shows a complete failure to understand how open market operations work. That money isn't printed so government can spend it. It's printed to drive interest rates to as near zero as possible, in order to discourage saving and encourage investment... a perfectly sensible thing to do when you're facing a situation where a financial shock has caused a massive over-supply of savings (albeit one that's limited in its effectiveness once the rates are driven to near zero and there's still an oversupply of savings).

Will such discretionary war spending increase the likelihood of a default and/or hyperinflation within the next 5 years? Absolutely.

The only way you can default on your debt is if you simply choose not to pay it. The debt is issued in your own currency.

And the hyperinflation claims are just getting pitiful. Here's the quantitative easing program, measured against inflation.

See how the blue line, the money base goes up and up as more and more dollars are spent... but the red line of inflation remains flat. Well that's the exact opposite of what the hyperinflation people claimed would happen. In response they didn't reconsider their models... they just kept repeating that there'll be hyperinflation any second now, and this time we should believe them. Those people are wrong, and so indifferent to how wrong they are they start sounding ridiculous.

**Noble713**

sebster wrote:
Noble713 wrote:
Not to derail the thread on a tangent about economics, but yes, the economic situation of the US and the fiscal situation of the government (at all levels, Federal/state/local) is tenuous and getting worse. Our unfunded liabilities are gigantic, the population has slid into poverty, and only the Federal Reserve's habit of inventing $85 billion of new money every month is in any way papering over the problems.

That's all just junk economics. Total nonsense from... well from a blog that leads off with a Fight Club quote.

I've seen a consistent trend in this thread of attacking the messenger instead of applying critical thought about the content of the message. The stats on American foodstamp use come from the Federal government, they are not invented out of thin air by bloggers. They are invented out of thin air by bureaucrats. So if you have a problem with a picture that they paint you should accuse the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of being a junk economist.

Insisting that debt should include future liabilities, ie how much will be paid in pensions and the like in the future, but not considering how much will be earned in tax revenues to pay for those, is just moonbat crazy. It's like insisting that a homeowner is bankrupt because the amount they'll pay in interest on their mortgage next year is more than they've got in their savings account, and for some reason we aren't allowed to consider that they'll earn money from their job over the course of the year.

No it's more like insisting that the McDonald's employee with a GED probably isn't going to experience sufficient wage growth in the future to pay for the McMansion that he owns now. Protestations that he is well on his way to a 6-figure income while he spends his non-McD's hours playing Xbox are unconvincing.

And trying to describe quantitative easing as papering over problems shows a complete failure to understand how open market operations work. That money isn't printed so government can spend it. It's printed to drive interest rates to as near zero as possible, in order to discourage saving and encourage investment... a perfectly sensible thing to do when you're facing a situation where a financial shock has caused a massive over-supply of savings (albeit one that's limited in its effectiveness once the rates are driven to near zero and there's still an oversupply of savings).

Except it's *not working*. Small business ownership is down. Wages are stagnant in nominal terms and significantly down in real terms. The student loan debt bubble is finally starting to burst.. An oversupply of savings? Where? On the balance sheets of big banks perhaps? Because it sure as hell isn't held by the labor force:

See how the blue line, the money base goes up and up as more and more dollars are spent... but the red line of inflation remains flat. Well that's the exact opposite of what the hyperinflation people claimed would happen.

1. I notice the URL for your image references Krugman. I hope you are not looking to him as a subject matter expert. This is the same guy who suggested that an alien invasion would be good for the economy.

2. Past performance is no indicator of future success. Case in point? Zimbabwe:

Sitting at 2000 on Zimbabwe's graph and saying "See? Inflation is flat. Therefore we are at no risk of hyperinflation." really didn't work out too well.

3. You do know that the CPI formulas are massaged regularly to fit the intended agenda of the moment? Even Ron Paul has said as much. Or you could just look at the Big Mac Index as an example. FYI: Peter Schiff (featured in the link) is one of the investors who accurately predicted the financial collapse of 2008.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Same was said about the F-117 in Bosnia....which the Russian studied....and the current version of the SA300 is 2004...so the missile system was built with stealth in mind. Don't get me wrong now. I'm not cheering on the "bad" guy. I just don't a "US pilot" to be "That Guy" to find out how effective that missile system is

It's not like they downed the fleet.

The Russians study our stuff, but we study theirs. We know how to defeat an air defense network. Even a Russian one run by Syrians.

The exception of course is that, even studying it, doesn't mean we won't take casualties. All of Syria is not worth one US citizen. Sorry, play your own damn war.

Having said that, this was announced by some flunkie last week right? So far not big push.

I think its a PR / wag the dog stunt. Nothing's going to actually be done of significance. Which would be awesome.

**KalashnikovMarine**

We can launch some older tomahawk cruise missiles at the problem and call it good. Those puppies have a shelf life so we might as well throw'em at something.

**Frazzled**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We can launch some older tomahawk cruise missiles at the problem and call it good. Those puppies have a shelf life so we might as well throw'em at something.

Team Weinerdog reminds me that the local squirrel and cat population is getting out of hand, and believe a few Tomohawk missiles into the neighbor's trees would be just the ticket.