• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

Nothing like inventing BS to scare people into your perspective.

I didn't invent anything up.....Looks like those New Sources didn't give you any out huh?.....Moreover it would be basic strategy. I thought even you could have figured that one out little younger brutha. ;)
 
Obama has a role for the UN.
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67152875-role-un.jpg
 
The United States, which periodically lectures to developing Third World nations about protecting human rights, rule of law, good governance and high moral standards, annually issuing ‘human rights practices’ of other countries, cannot restrain its own Special Operations forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from indiscriminately killing innocent civilians.

The worst is that U.S. authorities blatantly lie about these atrocities and war crimes by twisting the story to read that ‘insurgents’ were killed in a confrontation.

This week, the United States, the foremost advocator to the Globe on human rights and rule of law while accusing other nations of committing genocide, war crimes and other atrocities, was exposed how U.S. Special Operations forces killed an innocent family in Afghanistan last February and another civilian massacre in Iraq in 2007.


U.S. war crimes-atrocities in Iraq/Afghanistan exposed: Attempted cover-up foiled | Asian Tribune

You raise some complex issues that extend well beyond the scope of this thread. I'll provide my personal opinion, but keep it brief.

1. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilian objectives and accidentally hitting them. That's one distinction and it's vital. One should be careful to avoid drawing false equivalences e.g., as were drawn during the intifada of terrorism unleashed against Israel. At the same time, it should be noted that there have been elements of U.S. forces that have engaged in what properly can be termed war crimes. One such suspect responsible for a massacre in Afghanistan was recently convicted in the U.S. That he was tried and convicted indicates that the U.S. is making efforts to deal with these problems. One can't say the same about every country.

2. When carrying out military strikes, one has to be careful to ensure that the expected harm to civilians is not excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be attained. Where there is doubt or where an reasonable assessment can't be made, there should be no strike. Like any forecasting exercise and any act of human judgment, expectations can prove off the mark. Accidents can also occur. Other unforeseen scenarios can unfold.

What I would like to see is much greater review of operations to compare outcomes with expectations. Based on the empirical evidence, if harm to civilians is consistently excessive in cases or greater than expectations, adjustments to the decision making process should be made. Adjustments could include limiting certain kinds of targets, seeking greater information prior to targeting, using different approaches to implement military operations in certain cases, and building in more realistic assumptions to guide decision making. The reviews need to occur on a continual basis.

It is not illegitimate for foreign nations, partners, even the U.S. government to continually ask whether the U.S. could do better. With a robust review process, it probably is not unreasonable to expect improvements. Such improvements could only reduce the incidence of the issues in question, foster fewer unfavorable perceptions, and increase the likelihood of the U.S. meeting its larger goals.

3. In the larger foreign policy framework, the U.S., like any country, can't be expected not to articulate its ideals, including those related to human rights. However, it should be careful not to be overbearing, as that can only result in others' exploiting its own shortcomings when they invariably arise. It is also unrealistic for one to expect every country to embrace a liberal, democratic system as exists in the U.S., Western Europe, parts of Asia, etc. Homegrown factors be they sectarian rivalries, historic experience (especially recent experience), institutional/legal frameworks, etc., create different structural environments, some of which are quite hostile to sustainable democratic governance.

4. The U.S. should remain willing to cooperate with other states in areas of common interest, even those with different political systems than the U.S. Avoiding excessive idealism can allow the U.S. to find more of the common ground that exists and to achieve more successful foreign policy outcomes. In turn, that can amplify its diplomatic capacities and reduce the need for it to resort to hard power. As is the case with any other state, the U.S. needs to respect the critical interests of other states to the extent possible in pursuing realistic foreign policy goals. Occasionally, interests will diverge, and the U.S. cannot be expected to abandon its critical interests nor its strategic allies. Its the defense of those allies and interests that can make the use of force necessary. The sectarian conflict in Syria and recent civil war in Libya do not rise to that threshold. I believe the use of force in the former would be an error inconsistent with American interests. I believe the latter was a mistake and it has led to unintended consequences without materially benefiting American interests or strategic allies. In contrast, a deliberate attack on Jordan or Israel, as two examples, would rise to that level where, if necessary, the use of force would be justified.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what are really some complex issues, both in substance and perception.
 
I didn't invent anything up.....Looks like those New Sources didn't give you any out huh?.....Moreover it would be basic strategy. I thought even you could have figured that one out little younger brutha. ;)

A NYT articles claims that, in addition to expecting the promise of supplying of S300s to be fulfilled, anti-ship missiles will be provided. Another article claims confirmation of S300 delivery. There is no confirmation of anti-ship missiles and if there was we would need to wonder about the effectiveness of them against a first-strike. The S300s mean nothing to the US. We are still the only country with invisible planes and we can certainly bring Assad to his knees virtually overnight.

The real challenge will be the assembly of a transitional government, hopefully better than was managed in Iraq. Though, we couldn't really guess that excluding the Baath would leave nobody in the room, forcing us to go looking for common scoundrels to make up the transitional government.
 
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?

I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.
 
A NYT articles claims that, in addition to expecting the promise of supplying of S300s to be fulfilled, anti-ship missiles will be provided. Another article claims confirmation of S300 delivery. There is no confirmation of anti-ship missiles and if there was we would need to wonder about the effectiveness of them against a first-strike. The S300s mean nothing to the US. We are still the only country with invisible planes and we can certainly bring Assad to his knees virtually overnight.The real challenge will be the assembly of a transitional government, hopefully better than was managed in Iraq. Though, we couldn't really guess that excluding the Baath would leave nobody in the room, forcing us to go looking for common scoundrels to make up the transitional government.


I don't think the stealth aircraft are invisible anymore. I remember in Kosovo/Croatia it was discovered that the Stealth aircraft interfered with cell phones, ergo competent individuals have most certainly devised cellular phone frequencies to detect the invisible stealth aircraft. It doesn't have to be radar. It could be field interruption. Sequential cell phone connections across a given area and as they are interrupted sequentially, it becomes the track/signature of the stealth aircraft. Monitor to track specific speed ranges consistent with the stealth capabilities expected. I think there biggest strength is the ability to cruise at treetop level with terrain guidance systems. Low and slow and perhaps below the radar.
 
Last edited:
You raise some complex issues that extend well beyond the scope of this thread. I'll provide my personal opinion, but keep it brief.

1. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilian objectives and accidentally hitting them. That's one distinction and it's vital. One should be careful to avoid drawing false equivalences e.g., as were drawn during the intifada of terrorism unleashed against Israel. At the same time, it should be noted that there have been elements of U.S. forces that have engaged in what properly can be termed war crimes. One such suspect responsible for a massacre in Afghanistan was recently convicted in the U.S. That he was tried and convicted indicates that the U.S. is making efforts to deal with these problems. One can't say the same about every country.

2. When carrying out military strikes, one has to be careful to ensure that the expected harm to civilians is not excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be attained. Where there is doubt or where an reasonable assessment can't be made, there should be no strike. Like any forecasting exercise and any act of human judgment, expectations can prove off the mark. Accidents can also occur. Other unforeseen scenarios can unfold.

What I would like to see is much greater review of operations to compare outcomes with expectations. Based on the empirical evidence, if harm to civilians is consistently excessive in cases or greater than expectations, adjustments to the decision making process should be made. Adjustments could include limiting certain kinds of targets, seeking greater information prior to targeting, using different approaches to implement military operations in certain cases, and building in more realistic assumptions to guide decision making. The reviews need to occur on a continual basis.

It is not illegitimate for foreign nations, partners, even the U.S. government to continually ask whether the U.S. could do better. With a robust review process, it probably is not unreasonable to expect improvements. Such improvements could only reduce the incidence of the issues in question, foster fewer unfavorable perceptions, and increase the likelihood of the U.S. meeting its larger goals.

3. In the larger foreign policy framework, the U.S., like any country, can't be expected not to articulate its ideals, including those related to human rights. However, it should be careful not to be overbearing, as that can only result in others' exploiting its own shortcomings when they invariably arise. It is also unrealistic for one to expect every country to embrace a liberal, democratic system as exists in the U.S., Western Europe, parts of Asia, etc. Homegrown factors be they sectarian rivalries, historic experience (especially recent experience), institutional/legal frameworks, etc., create different structural environments, some of which are quite hostile to sustainable democratic governance.

4. The U.S. should remain willing to cooperate with other states in areas of common interest, even those with different political systems than the U.S. Avoiding excessive idealism can allow the U.S. to find more of the common ground that exists and to achieve more successful foreign policy outcomes. In turn, that can amplify its diplomatic capacities and reduce the need for it to resort to hard power. As is the case with any other state, the U.S. needs to respect the critical interests of other states to the extent possible in pursuing realistic foreign policy goals. Occasionally, interests will diverge, and the U.S. cannot be expected to abandon its critical interests nor its strategic allies. Its the defense of those allies and interests that can make the use of force necessary. The sectarian conflict in Syria and recent civil war in Libya do not rise to that threshold. I believe the use of force in the former would be an error inconsistent with American interests. I believe the latter was a mistake and it has led to unintended consequences without materially benefiting American interests or strategic allies. In contrast, a deliberate attack on Jordan or Israel, as two examples, would rise to that level where, if necessary, the use of force would be justified.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what are really some complex issues, both in substance and perception.


Thanks Don, I thought you were going to keep it brief, lol.


I will keep it brief. Considering the advantage of citizen support that Assad has, 55-70%, I think that speaks volumes to the fact he is taking precautions as much as possible to protect his people. Furthermore, you must know that he has HUGE pressure from Russia and China not to be targeting civilians, sense that would be necessary for them to maintain any credibility for supporting him and to enable both of them to continue advocacy on their part at the UN level. Above all both China and Russia have told Assad under no circumstances can he pull out the chemical warfare to use on the terrorists operating inside his borders, attempting to overthrow him because of potential collateral damage to his people. And finally, Assad has and desperately needs to maintain the support of his people to win. Intentionally targeting them has no basis in logic, helps the terrorists that want to overthrow him, helps the US that wants to overthrow him and cripples his help from his ally's, really, think about this.
 
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?

I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.

I was referring to recent examples. I agree that, for example, the intense air raids on Dresden toward the close of WW II, would properly amount to a war crime. Those air raids were almost certainly more about retribution than gaining military advantage.
 
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?

I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.

Angry, dude! Do you always have to throw a wet blanket on people's well thought out posts, lol.
 
I don't think the stealth aircraft are invisible anymore. I remember in Kosovo/Croatia it was discovered that the Stealth aircraft interfered with cell phones, ergo competent individuals have most certainly devised cellular phone frequencies to detect the invisible stealth aircraft. It doesn't have to be radar. It could be field interruption. Sequential cell phone connections across a given area and as they are interrupted sequentially, it becomes the track/signature of the stealth aircraft. Monitor to track specific speed ranges consistent with the stealth capabilities expected. I think there biggest strength is the ability to cruise at treetop level with terrain guidance systems. Low and slow and perhaps below the radar.

I suppose those cellphones can locate and track the plane :roll:

It's going in that direction! haha
 
It's not intentional (or is it?)
m7gzdu.jpg
 
I suppose those cellphones can locate and track the plane :roll:

It's going in that direction! haha

Read it until it makes sense. The interruptions would be between the cell phone links and the planes movement would pass through i.e. a connection from Palestine to Western Greece, then Northern Palestine to Eastern Greece, then Lebanon to slightly offshore Syria. Then Damascus to Alleppo. The track would move from West to East between the given locations. End of story.
 
Read it until it makes sense. The interruptions would be between the cell phone links and the planes movement would pass through i.e. a connection from Palestine to Western Greece, then Northern Palestine to Eastern Greece, then Lebanon to slightly offshore Syria. Then Damascus to Alleppo. The track would move from West to East between the given locations. End of story.

One must actually locate and individually track the plane to fire on it. "It's going that way!" is insufficient. I can't believe you think cellphones will defeat stealth aircraft.
 
A NYT articles claims that, in addition to expecting the promise of supplying of S300s to be fulfilled, anti-ship missiles will be provided. Another article claims confirmation of S300 delivery. There is no confirmation of anti-ship missiles and if there was we would need to wonder about the effectiveness of them against a first-strike. The S300s mean nothing to the US. We are still the only country with invisible planes and we can certainly bring Assad to his knees virtually overnight.

The real challenge will be the assembly of a transitional government, hopefully better than was managed in Iraq. Though, we couldn't really guess that excluding the Baath would leave nobody in the room, forcing us to go looking for common scoundrels to make up the transitional government.



What a crock of ****.....the Israelis even went and to try and take them out. But the Brits stated there was no Confirmation that they were taken out. So you can save all that BS about whether we know if they have them or not. Seems you have no clue as to what your talking about on the delivery.

Furthermore he already had the S200's.

Btw this is what the S300 is about.....before you start popping off about our tech. Also note all those who are anyone worth the knowing, have all been harping about what they can do. Plus how Assads Anti Air would be full circle. Long Med and Short. With Added protections for them.....other than Civilians.

Five Things You Should Know About Syria And Russia’s S-300 Missile System

6672C619-FEA7-4922-9A83-7B7F2BD757BD_w640_s.jpg


What are the capabilities of the S-300 system?

The S-300 missile system is designed to shoot down aircraft and missiles at a range of 5-to-150 kilometers. That gives it the ability to destroy not only attackers in Syrian airspace but also any attackers inside Israel.

It can track and strike multiple targets simultaneously at altitudes ranging from 10 meters to 27,000 meters.

"The S-300 is Russia's top-of-the-range air-defense system," says Robert Hewson, the London-based editor of "IHS Jane's Air-Launched Weapons." "It is a surface-to-air missile system that's capable of shooting down any modern combat aircraft or missiles, including cruise missiles. In a way, it is the Russian equivalent to the U.S. Patriot system. And what it does for Syria is it adds a whole new level of capability on top of the existing Syrian air defenses. Syria already has a lot of Russian [surface-to-air] missiles, but the S-300 would be the most advanced."

How much would a deployed S-300 system complicate a decision by the international community to create no-fly zones in Syria?

The deployment of the S-300 system would greatly complicate any such measures in Syria.....snip~

Five Things You Should Know About Syria And Russia
 
s-300-missile-system.jpg


5 min set up and take down. The Russian Advisors that deal with these have been in Syria since last year. Equivalnet to the US Patriot System.
 
They can target them by timing the cellphone disruption and guessing the location and exact direction. Well, they could try that if any were any left after a first strike.
 
They can target them by timing the cellphone disruption and guessing the location and exact direction. Well, they could try that if any were any left after a first strike.

They don't know. ;)

Could foreign powers find ways to circumvent the S-300 system if it were deployed?

One way to circumvent air-defense systems is to try to disrupt their operations through electronic techniques rather than attack them directly. But Elleman says it is an open question whether the S-300 could be blocked this way.

"Electronic warfare and spoofing of systems in quite common," he says, "but one must keep in mind that the S-300 is a very sophisticated piece of weaponry. And I am not convinced that the West, Israel, or Turkey could reliably neutralize the system without taking some kind of kinetic action -- in other words, going after some of the radar or some of the interceptors [with force]. So, in terms of circumventing, I think it would be very difficult and very risky." .....snip~

Five Things You Should Know About Syria And Russia
 
What happens when we use cruise missiles and Syria has no capacity to respond? Are you gonna be like "oh, well, it coulda been different"? No, it can't be. Syria can do nothing against a US first-strike.
 
What happens when we use cruise missiles and Syria has no capacity to respond? Are you gonna be like "oh, well, it coulda been different"? No, it can't be. Syria can do nothing against a US first-strike.

You tell me, with all those civilians that will be standing out there by anything of value. :roll:
 
You tell me, with all those civilians that will be standing out there by anything of value. :roll:

Assad will use human shields?
 
Assad will use human shields?

What you don't think he will put his values in Civilian Neighborhoods. We will end up killing more than what was gassed in this attack.
 
Humans make lousy shields
 
If the enemy doesn't mind blowing up houses then the tanks are history.
If you fight with a big poofy glove on one hand and tie the other behind your back what's the point?
Them Rooskies know how to do it
Battle of Grozny (1999
 
No Don we intentionally incinerated whole cities in Germany & Japan with the express purpose of wiping out civilians.
Basically if you don't want to kill people, then you shouldn't be at war, but then gee there'd be no reason at all to continue
spending trillions of dollars feeding the Military/industrial complex?

I still say we are not getting nearly the bang for our bucks we deserve.

Yikes.
Sounds like you're saying that all those trillions of dollars should have produced a higher body count by now.
 
Back
Top Bottom