Switch Theme:

Hundreds (allegedly) dead in Syrian chemical weapons attack  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I said the rebels the President is backing might try it.



Since when was Obama backing the Syrian rebels?

I mean, I know he's opposed to the current regime, but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the rebels.


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Ketara wrote:

Since when was Obama backing the Syrian rebels?

I mean, I know he's opposed to the current regime, but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the rebels.


There are elements of the Syrian Rebels who have been receiving US aid. However, the problem is that people have been referring to a blanket 'the rebels' which is wildly misleading, as there are dozens of factions involved. The United States favors certain factions but not others.

A lot of you on previous occasions have challenged my view on the necessity of intervention as being based off my gut feeling about this. I would say that (if true) my gut instinct was not wrong and the current escalation is a direct result of outside powers to act.

I know many of you feel that, and this is a quote from one marine I talked to about intervention in Syria: 'Who gives a feth? Let the sand kill each other'. (I had to remove the word he used as Dakka does not permit that particular n-word) While I doubt many of you would put it in such.... blatant terms, the fact that there is a certain 'subhuman' tone to the view that the US should not be concerned that particularly horrific WMDs are being used on civilian targets has crept into these discussions before sort of exposes the real issue.

They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/25 20:52:42



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Fully-charged Electropriest




Portland, OR by way of WI

I say let em fight it out and then back the winners


as does the US gov



seriously, these kids over there need to just fight it out. they have been fighting since like, the birth of humanity, what can stop them? death is all that ever has

if they can't get along then funk it, what is the point of trying anymore, just fight it out, the winners win and the losers are written about by the winners, such is the way history has always went


options are

A: Let them fight it out
B: ???????????????????????????????????????????????
C: yea, we are all out of options
D: Nuke it


3000+
Death Company, Converted Space Hulk Termies
RIP Diz, We will never forget ya brother 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

In any case all that would be needed is the detection on the meters for the President to have what he needs.


What evidence do you have to suggest that this Administration wants to become directly involved in the Syrian conflict?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.


Identification is a funny thing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/25 21:54:27


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

Since when was Obama backing the Syrian rebels?

I mean, I know he's opposed to the current regime, but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the rebels.


There are elements of the Syrian Rebels who have been receiving US aid. However, the problem is that people have been referring to a blanket 'the rebels' which is wildly misleading, as there are dozens of factions involved. The United States favors certain factions but not others.

A lot of you on previous occasions have challenged my view on the necessity of intervention as being based off my gut feeling about this. I would say that (if true) my gut instinct was not wrong and the current escalation is a direct result of outside powers to act.

I know many of you feel that, and this is a quote from one marine I talked to about intervention in Syria: 'Who gives a feth? Let the sand kill each other'. (I had to remove the word he used as Dakka does not permit that particular n-word) While I doubt many of you would put it in such.... blatant terms, the fact that there is a certain 'subhuman' tone to the view that the US should not be concerned that particularly horrific WMDs are being used on civilian targets has crept into these discussions before sort of exposes the real issue.

They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.

The reason most people dont want to see an intervention in Syria is because there is absolutly no certainty in the outcome. We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them.
This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant. This is already happening in Syria right now, without the fall of the government. If the government would fall it would be even worse, with only hezbollah protecting the religious shia minority. the Kurds and christians standing alone between the sunni and shia extremists. We would just have the most extreme of both groups fighting on, hezbollah and the sunni extremist factions. This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence. We cant stop the violence, only one of them winning can and (I cant believe Im saying this) Assad appears to be the choice that isnt the worst as time progresses. The rebels as you said are to splintered to achieve lasting peace and will just fall to infighting and further religious violence. Assad might get rid of the rebels, but after that the civil war might be largely at an end, treating the religious minorities with a bit of decency (except the extremists, that genie is out of the bottle).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/25 21:59:01


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






I seriously think if we commit in Syria with "Boots on Ground" that the USA will be in some serious financial trouble.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."

Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."

Nope... right there with ya.

Only way I can even think we'd intervene is if Israel begs us... not that they'd need our help there.

Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.

That'd be way too much "cowboy" for the world to handle Frazzled.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The reason most people dont want to see an intervention in Syria is because there is absolutly no certainty in the outcome.


Welcome to the reality that is war.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them.


Because, yes, warring factions will give up their chemical weapons willingly in the middle of the war and the US military will be able to locate and extract said chemical weapons in the middle of war without getting plastered by every side while they do it. Frankly, that sort of RoE is suicidal and will get more men killed than suppressing the war and then extracting the chemical weapons afterward would. We're looking at a huge amount of chemicals stored around an entire country by several warring factions looking to hide them.


The US has already picked what factions (in theory) most closely match it's national interests and have already been funding and supporting them.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant.... This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence.


I'm trying hard not to Godwin the thread, but you came very close to paraphrasing an argument made by Charles Lindbergh against the US becoming involved in World War II, on April 23rd 1941.

Wars are like that. People like to imagine wars are fought in little bubbles off to the side of the everyday world, and that they don't have any impact on their lives. It's not your fight until it is, that sort of thing. I'm actually trying very hard not to Godwin this thread, but your statement above came so close to a speech from April of 1941 about how the US should not become involved because they could never beat the Axis and shouldn't become involved. After all, look waht getting involved did to England and France.

I suppose my point is that eventually every war comes knocking at everyone's door, eventually. And the longer you let it burn, the worse it gets, and the worse it is when it finally starts dragging you in.

"We must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the Nation that most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war"

Jihadin: That may be true, but how much more so trying to deal with a more general regional war which this might become?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazz on the German invasion of Poland: "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."


Frazz, you seem to have as short memory on how things that are other people's problems eventually become the US' problems. After all, Al Qaeda wasn't the US problem either. Until it was.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 02:52:55



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.

And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Seaward wrote:
The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.

And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.


Ever since the Falklands, the main strategy of our makeup of military force has been to make ourselves capable of instant deployment anywhere on the globe. Out of the entire EU, we're more or less the only ones who maintain any serious fighting capability. The only reason the British would even need the French along, is because we currently have no carrier capability, and they do.

Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 07:22:16



 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Ketara wrote:
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

I don't think that's true.

But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?

Dunno. Some of your compatriots want us to go, and I reckon if it's really that important, y'all might want to handle it yourselves.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Seaward wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

I don't think that's true.


I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.

We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.

In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.


I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies and vehicle/helicopter support could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 07:44:30



 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Ketara wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

I don't think that's true.


I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.

We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.

In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.


I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.

Yeah. Having some experience with deployments, I'm gonna say no. Pulling the trigger right now, you won't get 30,000 guys in Syria - not to mention tanks and all the other ground-pounder accoutrements - by this time next Monday. Balls-out sailing time alone would be (at a very, very rough estimate) four/five days. Think you can get all that embarked in two/three?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 07:50:28


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 Seaward wrote:

Yeah. Having some experience with deployments, I'm gonna say no. Pulling the trigger right now, you won't get 30,000 guys in Syria - not to mention tanks and all the other ground-pounder accoutrements - by this time next Monday. Balls-out sailing time alone would be (at a very, very rough estimate) four/five days. Think you can get all that embarked in two/three?


Ah, I see. I thought you were questioning the transport logistics side of things (as that's what was raised earlier on in this thread). In that case, yes, I was mildly flippant on the timescale (I wasn't aware that particular aspect was seriously being raised).

But not by that much. It would probably take about a week and a half for the initial first wave of ten thousand or so to arrive, with the other twenty thousand arriving in second/third waves over the course of the following fortnight.


My main point though, was that if you add in a French Carrier for localised air support, we more or less have all bases covered, and enough shipping capacity to go it solo, if we so desired.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/08/26 07:58:33



 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




And I say go for it. Surely you're not indifferent to the humanitarian crisis, nor the notion that failing to intervene costs you your credibility in asking the US to do so in any future similar situations.
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







I personally have no desire to aid either Mr Assad, or Al Qaeda.

I would be in favour of setting up a safe zone or two though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 08:40:12



 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka





Southampton

If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.

By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 09:53:59


   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The reason most people dont want to see an intervention in Syria is because there is absolutly no certainty in the outcome.


Welcome to the reality that is war.

I might have been a bit short. I meant that there is no side which the West can really stand behind. No long term goal or party that can take over. We dont know what to do down there and how long that will take. We cant just intervene for a couple of months and leave. That wont work.


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them.


Because, yes, warring factions will give up their chemical weapons willingly in the middle of the war and the US military will be able to locate and extract said chemical weapons in the middle of war without getting plastered by every side while they do it. Frankly, that sort of RoE is suicidal and will get more men killed than suppressing the war and then extracting the chemical weapons afterward would. We're looking at a huge amount of chemicals stored around an entire country by several warring factions looking to hide them.


The US has already picked what factions (in theory) most closely match it's national interests and have already been funding and supporting them.

Suppressing the war wont help. We go in there and were in for a fight, no matter what. No matter the RoE we will get plastered, by one side or the other, but more likely both sides. We cant suppress the war, it would be Iraq all over again, its basicly some of the same people on both sides that were there for Iraq too. Off course you have to temporarily supress the war to get those weapons out, but most likely almost all factions will fight you every step of the way.

But that the US has picked (in theory) doesnt prove anything. They have made enough bad choiches in the not so distant past. Like the tribal allies in Afghanistan during the invasion or the Taliban during the Soviet one. They are only using us to get what they want, they put up a good face (Libya, the muslim brotherhood in Egypt) and when you have helped they dont care anymore.


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant.... This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence.


I'm trying hard not to Godwin the thread, but you came very close to paraphrasing an argument made by Charles Lindbergh against the US becoming involved in World War II, on April 23rd 1941.

Wars are like that. People like to imagine wars are fought in little bubbles off to the side of the everyday world, and that they don't have any impact on their lives. It's not your fight until it is, that sort of thing. I'm actually trying very hard not to Godwin this thread, but your statement above came so close to a speech from April of 1941 about how the US should not become involved because they could never beat the Axis and shouldn't become involved. After all, look waht getting involved did to England and France.

I suppose my point is that eventually every war comes knocking at everyone's door, eventually. And the longer you let it burn, the worse it gets, and the worse it is when it finally starts dragging you in.

"We must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the Nation that most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war"

If you Godwin the thread it wouldnt make any sense. The situation in Syria is much less clear and badly fractured. Intervention in these kinds of conflicts is extremely difficult and has already proven to be no guarantee, like Lebanon. There 299 American and French military personnel lost their lives to islamic extremists, prompting the retreat out of Lebanon. Now the use of suicide attacks and bombings is much higher, due to the rise in extremism.

On your point of it getting worse. The only thing that is going to make it worse is Western intervention. Iran will not just stand by and see on of its only shia allies lose. It will worsen the conflict by sending more arms or even personnel (volunteers). China and Russia have already proven that they will send weapons to help against Western intervention. Helping the rebel factions win will most likely be only viable if we protect every single chemical bunker or storage. Because the most likely thing the sunni extremists will do is try to arm them to a missile and aim for Isreal, they only see Syria as a platform, they are not even Syrians themselves.

The West has no clear plan or strategy to solve the situation there. If they did, it would probably already have been over. But on the political and dimplomatic level this is a nightmare. Even if you only go in to protect the people and stop aid to certain factions, it will stil be treated as a breach of sovereignty by Russia and China. Again Iraq is the example of Western intervention not knowing the situation on the ground and no goverment that does, because you cant support both sides of the war. That is what Western intervention will end up with in Syria, a second Iraq or Afghanistan.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/26 10:00:43


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







I wouldn't trust either faction as far as I could throw them. For me, that rules out sending weapons or supporting any of the parties currently vying for power. I also wouldn't trust any of the neighbours or factions to let aid shipments get to where they need to go.

In a hypothetical world where I was Prime Minister, I'd grab the US, the Germans, and the French, and have each of us contribute 2,500 men + support equipment. Then land at Latakia on the coast, and enforce a twenty mile safe zone. Followed by the setting up as many refugee camps as possible, and direct allocation of aid.

Once all that is achieved, I'd have a local police force set up within that zone to enforce law and order, have the troops man the perimeter/escort in refugee columns (none of that watching soldiers gunning down civilians twenty metres from the perimeter malarkey), and leave the dregs of humanity to fight it out over the rest of the country.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/26 10:06:25



 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."

Nope... right there with ya.

Only way I can even think we'd intervene is if Israel begs us... not that they'd need our help there.

Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.

That'd be way too much "cowboy" for the world to handle Frazzled.


I'm a cowboy. On a steel horse I ride...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Flashman wrote:
If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.

By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.


Flashman has the way of it, and with fine pipe smoke!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 11:07:53


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Seaward wrote:
The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.

And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.


The British and French were handling Syria when you guys were still chasing Geronimo around!

Jokes aside, it's a fair point. 9,500 thousand top quality American troops (with the usual overwhelming firepower response) added to the British and French forces, say, for a total of 30,000 boots on the ground, would be more than enough to settle this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Flashman wrote:
If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.

By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.


True words and a good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ketara wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

I don't think that's true.


I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.

We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.

In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.


I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies and vehicle/helicopter support could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.



Fact of the day: The BEF was the world's first fully mechanised force


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."

Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.


Fallout, Frazz, fallout! That red line is now a scarlet line!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's talk numbers and logistics. Let's assume the West decides on military action.

How long will it take for:

1) American destroyers and/or British/French ships to reach the area to blast some missiles?

2) How long would it take for an allied force of say, 30,000 men (or women I'm liberal ) to be deployed there?

And what of Syria's response. Given that the military response is being aired 24/7 in the news, and given that the Russians gave the Syrians some anti- air defences, how effective could a Syrian defence be against allied airstrikes?

Talk to me!

I'm not a military man, so I'm relying on dakka experts for the sort of analysis the news won't provide.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/08/26 12:02:55


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

Well, this is interesting, but hardly unsurprising: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
We cant just intervene for a couple of months and leave. That wont work.


The French might disagree with you on that one. Recently they've been pretty successful at doing exactly that, then handing off to the UN for the rebuilding process.



 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Suppressing the war wont help. We go in there and were in for a fight, no matter what. No matter the RoE we will get plastered, by one side or the other, but more likely both sides. We cant suppress the war, it would be Iraq all over again, its basicly some of the same people on both sides that were there for Iraq too. Off course you have to temporarily supress the war to get those weapons out, but most likely almost all factions will fight you every step of the way.


Not really, there really are WMDs this time. The second is that the US and it's allies already know what doesn't work this time. Going into Iraq they had no idea of what they were getting into or how to go about it. It does assume that command learned a damn thing, which is always dangerous, but there it is.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Intervention in these kinds of conflicts is extremely difficult and has already proven to be no guarantee, like Lebanon. There 299 American and French military personnel lost their lives to islamic extremists, prompting the retreat out of Lebanon. Now the use of suicide attacks and bombings is much higher, due to the rise in extremism.


And, Unless I misread the latest intel, most of those extremists are coming from Syria rather than being home grown Lebanese extremists.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:

On your point of it getting worse. The only thing that is going to make it worse is Western intervention. Iran will not just stand by and see on of its only shia allies lose. It will worsen the conflict by sending more arms or even personnel (volunteers). China and Russia have already proven that they will send weapons to help against Western intervention. Helping the rebel factions win will most likely be only viable if we protect every single chemical bunker or storage. Because the most likely thing the sunni extremists will do is try to arm them to a missile and aim for Isreal, they only see Syria as a platform, they are not even Syrians themselves.


So the war spreading into Lebanon Jordan and Turkey wouldn't be 'worse'? Escalating violence against civilians by both sides isn't 'worse'? The first would be a not too far fetched at this point direct result of not intervening. The second *might* happen if there is intervention but *will* happen if there isn't. And what happens when those chemical weapons turn up in a train in London, or a bus in Amsterdam, or a subway in New York? I think that would qualify as 'worse' don't you?



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

You go. I'll hold your coat for you.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

 Flashman wrote:
If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.

By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.


Yes I feel the same way.

Was one of the million or so who protested in the UK over the 2nd Iraq war, didn't make a scrap of difference to government policy then and unfortunately you get the feeling that even now saying "really... have you thought this through?" won't make any difference either.


Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Let's talk numbers and logistics. Let's assume the West decides on military action.

How long will it take for:

1) American destroyers and/or British/French ships to reach the area to blast some missiles?

American destroyers are already there. One of the benefits of still having a navy.

2) How long would it take for an allied force of say, 30,000 men (or women I'm liberal ) to be deployed there?

I'd give it at least a month.

And what of Syria's response. Given that the military response is being aired 24/7 in the news, and given that the Russians gave the Syrians some anti- air defences, how effective could a Syrian defence be against allied airstrikes?

Likely not that effective. I probably shouldn't say more than that I know it's possible to get into Syrian air without getting spiked relatively easily.

Iraq had a decent AD net, but we know how to take those apart. We'd lose some birds, but probably at Balkans intervention levels.

Doesn't matter, though. Obama's going to go Clintonesque on this and hope that throwing a few Tomahawks at the problem will let him get away with claiming he did something.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Works for me.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ketara wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.

And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.


Ever since the Falklands, the main strategy of our makeup of military force has been to make ourselves capable of instant deployment anywhere on the globe. Out of the entire EU, we're more or less the only ones who maintain any serious fighting capability. The only reason the British would even need the French along, is because we currently have no carrier capability, and they do.

Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.

But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?

All you'd have to do is send your Section 20 crew at them... right?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Our NATO ally Turkey may want some help cleaning up the region. Or our regional allies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia may want us to help stabilize things too.

Secondly, it is "potentially" in the US interested to enforce the idea tha tth euse of Chemical Weapons for any reason leads to swift and brutal retaliation from other nations. This has been the unstated international norm since the end of WWI.

I also predict that IF any intervention happens it will be a Libya or Kossovo style air-war.

All these things being said, I don't particularly support an air campaign (or any campaign) in Syria since the objectives are very unclear.

Edit: Seaward, do you recall what "Balkan Intervention Levels" of aircraft lost was? I honestly don't remember losing any pilots to Serb fire.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/26 13:50:51


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."

Nope. I agree 100%


Also - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900
Unidentified snipers have opened fire on a convoy of UN experts investigating suspected chemical weapons attacks in Syria's capital, the UN has said.

One car was shot at "multiple times", forcing the convoy to turn back. The UN promised to continue with the inquiry as soon as it could replace the car.

Syrian state media blamed opposition "terrorists" for the attack, though the claim could not be verified.

Hundreds died in suspected chemical attacks on Wednesday near Damascus.

The US said there was little doubt Syrian forces used chemical weapons in the attacks, which reportedly killed more than 300 people in rebel-held areas.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dismissed the accusation as "an insult to common sense" and warned the US against military intervention.

"If someone is dreaming of making Syria a puppet of the West, then this will not happen," he told the Russian newspaper Izvestiya.

'Intimidation'

The 20-member UN inspection team has been in Syria since 18 August to look into three earlier suspected chemical attacks.

The experts intend to take soil, blood, urine and tissue samples for laboratory testing from five locations on Monday and Tuesday.

They were unlikely to play any role in apportioning blame for the attack.

But shortly after setting out from the hotel, the cars came under fire "multiple times by unidentified snipers", according to a statement from the UN.

"The team returned safely back to the government checkpoint. The team will return to the area after replacing the vehicle," said the UN.

The UN Secretary General's spokesman, Farhan Haq, told the BBC the convoy was "deliberately targeted" and it seemed someone was trying to intimidate the team.

Military action
A year ago, US President Barack Obama said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be "a red line" that could trigger US military action.

Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies are meeting in Jordan.

But the UN Security Council remains divided, with China and Russia appearing unlikely to drop their objection to stricter sanctions on Mr Assad's government.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Monday that diplomats should be cautious in dealing with the chemical weapons issue, and Moscow warned Western nations not to prejudge the outcome of the inspections.

Western politicians have begun to suggest taking action outside of the UN system.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that action could be taken without UN approval if there was "great humanitarian need" in Syria.


Hans Blix: "It's important that [the inspectors] can go to any place they want to see"
His French counterpart Laurent Fabius suggested the UN Security Council could be bypassed "in certain circumstances".

But in his latest comments on the crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any intervention in Syria without a UN mandate would be a "grave violation of international law".

The West, he told a news conference in Moscow, had not been able to come up with any proof of chemical weapons use while "saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay".

'Neurotoxic symptoms'
Western officials were unimpressed with Syria's decision to allow in the UN experts.

Mr Hague said evidence could have been tampered with, degraded or destroyed in the five days since the attack.

A senior White House official, quoted by AP news agency, dismissed the visit as "too late to be credible".

Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Saturday that three hospitals it supports in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" on Wednesday morning, of whom 355 died.

While MSF said it could not "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons, staff at the hospitals described a large number of patients arriving in the space of less than three hours with symptoms including convulsions, pinpoint pupils and breathing problems.

Syria's security forces are widely believed to possess large undeclared stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin nerve agent.

It is one of seven countries that have not joined the 1997 convention banning chemical weapons.

 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: