• 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!

Obama Approves Air Surveillance of ISIS in Syria.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It appears we will be going into Syria to take action on ISIS. This could be a problem. What do you think of this considering BO and his Team have not talked with Assad and or the Russians about this? Oh, and after Assad released a statement yesterday? What say ye?


President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html
 
Naturally, Al Jazerra Headlined it in a different way.


Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria'.....
'US dilemma'

But the dilemma Obama was facing was the lack of partners in Syria, Landis said. Neither the Syrian regime, nor the fragmented moderate rebels could be seen as reliable allies. US officials, according to Reuters, have said privately that Washington has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime for any military flights.

The Syrian government on Monday warned that Syria must be involved in co-ordinating any air strikes against the Islamic State group in Syria Syria's government considers not only these two groups, but all those fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad to be "terrorists"......snip~

Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
 
MMC said:
It appears we will be going into Syria to take action on ISIS. This could be a problem. What do you think of this considering BO and his Team have not talked with Assad and or the Russians about this? Oh, and after Assad released a statement yesterday? What say ye?


President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html
Click to expand...

Maybe the best would be to use the bombs not needed for IS on Assad. Rid the world of him with leftovers.
 
joG said:
Maybe the best would be to use the bombs not needed for IS on Assad. Rid the world of him with leftovers.
Click to expand...


Mornin Jog. :2wave: Well Assad could take out drones and blame the Terrorists. But I don't think he wants to get into it with us. Eventually Putin will take notice. Also, on the 19th we banned all other flights over Syria. We have to have an idea of what the Terrorists have too.

Still who would take Assads place? The Rebels don't have an Army.....nor a way to bring the country together.
 
MMC said:
Mornin Jog. :2wave: Well Assad could take out drones and blame the Terrorists. But I don't think he wants to get into it with us. Eventually Putin will take notice. Also, on the 19th we banned all other flights over Syria. We have to have an idea of what the Terrorists have too.

Still who would take Assads place? The Rebels don't have an Army.....nor a way to bring the country together.
Click to expand...

Succession ist a real problem in the region. It is still a strongman sociology they have obviously very hard to break without being the strongman oneself.
 
joG said:
Succession ist a real problem in the region. It is still a strongman sociology they have obviously very hard to break without being the strongman oneself.
Click to expand...

According to Reuters our drones are already flying over Syria as of early this morning or started late last night.. Which I think BO had to rush, once knowing they had Scuds. Question is.....what else have they got from Assad and are there any other Ballistic Missiles. As we know they did pick up some Anti Air defenses.

After hearing about the Numbers these Terrorists have inside Syria.....we had better send in recon, First.
 
MMC said:
According to Reuters our drones are already flying over Syria as of early this morning or started late last night.. Which I think BO had to rush, once knowing they had Scuds. Question is.....what else have they got from Assad and are there any other Ballistic Missiles. As we know they did pick up some Anti Air defenses.

After hearing about the Numbers these Terrorists have inside Syria.....we had better send in recon, First.
Click to expand...

I don't think we will be sending boots on the ground anytime soon. The American public will not stand for it and given an election year no senator or congressman up for re-election is going to put a "yes" to it. Limited airstrikes and survellience until after the election at least.
 
TheNextEra said:
I don't think we will be sending boots on the ground anytime soon. The American public will not stand for it and given an election year no senator or congressman up for re-election is going to put a "yes" to it. Limited airstrikes and survellience until after the election at least.
Click to expand...

Mornin TNE. :2wave: Yeah and until there is someone willing to put boots on the ground. These terrorists wont be able to be taken out. Airstrikes just move them around.

I think you are Right with the issue on the election.

After hearing of their Numbers and the way they are fighting. We definitely do not want to rush in blazing guns. Nor run into a storm of Anti Air.
 
MMC said:
After hearing of their Numbers and the way they are fighting. We definitely do not want to rush in blazing guns. Nor run into a storm of Anti Air.
Click to expand...

Also without international support in money and troops I would not want us to go in there alone either. IMO, and I know it sounds harsh, but if we cannot get international support I am all for letting it get bad enough there to jusitfy nukes.
 
MMC said:
It appears we will be going into Syria to take action on ISIS. This could be a problem. What do you think of this considering BO and his Team have not talked with Assad and or the Russians about this? Oh, and after Assad released a statement yesterday? What say ye?


President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html
Click to expand...

This isn't new for Obama. In 2008, Candidate Obama said that as president that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan with or WITHOUT the Pakistani governments permission. Yet we have all Obama's handwringing over suppossed failure of the Russians to respect Ukrainian sovereign borders. More typical hypocritical US foreign policy. I can't imagine Russia and Syria will be fond of this, although I can't imagine what if anything they could do about it. Clearly shooting down surveillance planes would be within their right, but would probably be presented by the US as provocation. How many times have we seen this bull**** play out.
 
MMC said:
Naturally, Al Jazerra Headlined it in a different way.


Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria'.....
'US dilemma'

But the dilemma Obama was facing was the lack of partners in Syria, Landis said. Neither the Syrian regime, nor the fragmented moderate rebels could be seen as reliable allies. US officials, according to Reuters, have said privately that Washington has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime for any military flights.

The Syrian government on Monday warned that Syria must be involved in co-ordinating any air strikes against the Islamic State group in Syria Syria's government considers not only these two groups, but all those fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad to be "terrorists"......snip~

Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

I am a little confused here. The last I heard, Assad had emphasized that Syria was a sovereign country, and he wanted no drones or military missiles used by us in his country unless authorized by him. Seems like a reasonable request. Now I am reading that Obama "authorizes" spy flights over Syria, and he has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime. WTH? Has Assad asked for our help now, or what is going on? The UN recognizes Assad as the duly elected leader of Syria, so what is Obama doing? The US does not rule Syria. Does he want to have a confrontation with Russia over this, especially since we will look like the aggressor here in the eyes of the rest of the world, and if so, WHY?
 
Montecresto said:
This isn't new for Obama. In 2008, Candidate Obama said that as president that he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan with or WITHOUT the Pakistani governments permission. Yet we have all Obama's handwringing over suppossed failure of the Russians to respect Ukrainian sovereign borders. More typical hypocritical US foreign policy. I can't imagine Russia and Syria will be fond of this, although I can't imagine what if anything they could do about it. Clearly shooting down surveillance planes would be within their right, but would probably be presented by the US as provocation. How many times have we seen this bull**** play out.
Click to expand...


Mornin Monte. :2wave: Well there is the concern that we would help out the MB backed Rebels. Yet their Leadership has control of nothing. Also as I have stated.....no more Army. Most of their ranks have joined ISIS.

Again Russia and Putin will speak up if they try to hit Assad. As the OP mentioned. Assad warned yesterday about any flights into Syria. Seems we have no time to listen. They have Scuds.
 
MMC said:
Naturally, Al Jazerra Headlined it in a different way.


Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria'.....
'US dilemma'

But the dilemma Obama was facing was the lack of partners in Syria, Landis said. Neither the Syrian regime, nor the fragmented moderate rebels could be seen as reliable allies. US officials, according to Reuters, have said privately that Washington has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime for any military flights.

The Syrian government on Monday warned that Syria must be involved in co-ordinating any air strikes against the Islamic State group in Syria Syria's government considers not only these two groups, but all those fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad to be "terrorists"......snip~

Obama 'authorises spy flights over Syria' - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Click to expand...

Well Al Jazeera is after all "real news". And their headline is after all more accurate. And, president Assad has declared from the beginning that all the forces fighting him are terrorists and that the US support making its way to them has emboldened them and made things more difficult. So.....................US air strikes against any of them would be beneficial, depending on "collateral damage", aha. That's the looming question, what about side missions to hit Assad forces to further weaken Assad. Because after all, regime change in Syria is a pentagon doctrine that predates Obama. I'm sure both Syria and Russia will be concerned about the US' real intentions.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

I am a little confused here. The last I heard, Assad had emphasized that Syria was a sovereign country, and he wanted no drones or military missiles used by us in his country unless authorized by him. Seems like a reasonable request. Now I am reading that Obama "authorizes" spy flights over Syria, and he has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime. WTH? Has Assad asked for our help now, or what is going on? The UN recognizes Assad as the duly elected leader of Syria, so what is Obama doing? The US does not rule Syria. Does he want to have a confrontation with Russia over this, especially since we will look like the aggressor here in the eyes of the rest of the world, and if so, WHY?
Click to expand...

Good morning Polgara. Great questions. If president Assad authorises US military action within his country, it would stand to reason that it would be very conditional, and that no claimed collateral damage that struck his forces would be tolerated. I'm waiting impatiently to here what he and Putin have to say.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

I am a little confused here. The last I heard, Assad had emphasized that Syria was a sovereign country, and he wanted no drones or military missiles used by us in his country unless authorized by him. Seems like a reasonable request. Now I am reading that Obama "authorizes" spy flights over Syria, and he has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime. WTH? Has Assad asked for our help now, or what is going on? The UN recognizes Assad as the duly elected leader of Syria, so what is Obama doing? The US does not rule Syria. Does he want to have a confrontation with Russia over this, especially since we will look like the aggressor here in the eyes of the rest of the world, and if so, WHY?
Click to expand...


Mornin Lady P.
hat.gif
Seems Team BO didn't listen.....and according to the one WH Official who isn't named. They wont be asking Assad for any permission or talking to him.

Yeah only 17 countries acknowledged the MB backed Rebels. Which only 7 acknowledged them as Ruling Syria. Of course that was with Assad saying otherwise. So there about a good 100 countries that have not weighed in.

Still Ban Ki Moon and the UN dealt with Assad over the Chems and are in talks with him.
 
MMC said:
Mornin Monte. :2wave: Well there is the concern that we would help out the MB backed Rebels. Yet their Leadership has control of nothing. Also as I have stated.....no more Army. Most of their ranks have joined ISIS.

Again Russia and Putin will speak up if they try to hit Assad. As the OP mentioned. Assad warned yesterday about any flights into Syria. Seems we have no time to listen. They have Scuds.
Click to expand...

Morning bud, see you've been at it early today! I agree that there's no question Putin will speak up in that eventuality, but it depends on WH spin as to whether or not anyone pays attention. Of course, unless stated otherwise, US planes in Syria will be fair game, and with Russian support, it won't be like their going to be using RPG's.
 
Montecresto said:
Well Al Jazeera is after all "real news". And their headline is after all more accurate. And, president Assad has declared from the beginning that all the forces fighting him are terrorists and that the US support making its way to them has emboldened them and made things more difficult. So.....................US air strikes against any of them would be beneficial, depending on "collateral damage", aha. That's the looming question, what about side missions to hit Assad forces to further weaken Assad. Because after all, regime change in Syria is a pentagon doctrine that predates Obama. I'm sure both Syria and Russia will be concerned about the US' real intentions.
Click to expand...


Again who takes it from Assad? The Rebels have been routed they have no Army. Whats left is being picked off by ISIS. Just this weekend alone they have taken the towns the MB backed rebels were hiding out in.

As to what Assad said. I put it up yesterday. ;)


http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ficial-warns-us-no-unilateral-airstrikes.html
 
polgara said:
Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

I am a little confused here. The last I heard, Assad had emphasized that Syria was a sovereign country, and he wanted no drones or military missiles used by us in his country unless authorized by him. Seems like a reasonable request. Now I am reading that Obama "authorizes" spy flights over Syria, and he has no plans to seek consent from the Damascus regime. WTH? Has Assad asked for our help now, or what is going on? The UN recognizes Assad as the duly elected leader of Syria, so what is Obama doing? The US does not rule Syria. Does he want to have a confrontation with Russia over this, especially since we will look like the aggressor here in the eyes of the rest of the world, and if so, WHY?
Click to expand...

Pipelines and Russia. Same as Ukraine. The Western interests (think big energy USA) want to control all energy going through Syria and from Syria. Currently, Syria has sweetheart deals with Russia and Iran. We, the USA, create chaos in any Nations that don't deal with big energy USA. Look at Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc. and it becomes real clear. Play the game with our players, who seem to control USA gov't policy, or prepare for chaos, mayhem, death, destabilization and more easily described as policy by the statement, "If the USA can't have it, nobody can." Saudi Arabia, also big energy interests, is always willing to de-stabilize competitors. as well. It's still about OIL and money, same as Iraq, circa 2003.
 
MMC said:
Mornin Lady P.
hat.gif
Seems Team BO didn't listen.....and according to the one WH Official who isn't named. They wont be asking Assad for any permission or talking to him.

Yeah only 17 countries acknowledged the MB backed Rebels. Which only 7 acknowledged them as Ruling Syria. Of course that was with Assad saying otherwise. So there about a good 100 countries that have not weighed in.

Still Ban Ki Moon and the UN dealt with Assad over the Chems and are in talks with him.
Click to expand...

If that is confirmed I find it to be belligerent, and another hypocritical violation of sovereign borders.
 
Montecresto said:
If that is confirmed I find it to be belligerent, and another hypocritical violation of sovereign borders.
Click to expand...

That's what Wiki is carrying.

The Syrian National Council (SNC)[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council. One country, Libya, recognises the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria.....snip~

800px-CountriesRecognizingSNC.svg.png


International recognition of the Syrian National Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
MMC said:
It appears we will be going into Syria to take action on ISIS. This could be a problem. What do you think of this considering BO and his Team have not talked with Assad and or the Russians about this? Oh, and after Assad released a statement yesterday? What say ye?


President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html
Click to expand...

Surprised he didn't authorize drone bombing, he loves drone bombing.
 
MMC said:
Mornin Monte. :2wave: Well there is the concern that we would help out the MB backed Rebels. Yet their Leadership has control of nothing. Also as I have stated.....no more Army. Most of their ranks have joined ISIS.

Again Russia and Putin will speak up if they try to hit Assad. As the OP mentioned. Assad warned yesterday about any flights into Syria. Seems we have no time to listen. They have Scuds.
Click to expand...

None of our allies that I know of have backed us on this. There's a reason we don't have their support! Even the UN recognizes Assad as the rightful leader in Syria. Obama seems to be stubbornly set on doing this his way, unilaterally, which is bad news, IMO. Why is he backing the MB again- he tried it in Egypt, and the people there booted them out of power almost immediately. Very bad ju ju being brought into the picture here - do we really want to have the same things we're doing to other countries done to us? I don't think so!
 
MMC said:
It appears we will be going into Syria to take action on ISIS. This could be a problem. What do you think of this considering BO and his Team have not talked with Assad and or the Russians about this? Oh, and after Assad released a statement yesterday? What say ye?


President Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a precursor to potential airstrikes there, but a mounting concern for the White House is how to target the Sunni extremists without helping President Bashar al-Assad.

Defense officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria, using a combination of aircraft, including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights over the weekend, a senior administration official said.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html
Click to expand...

I think it's a good call, long term, but you raise a good point in that he has done this unilaterally. Though I doubt dialogues between Assad, Obama, and Putin would have ultimately changed the decision to gather intel this way, sometimes just saying, "Yo, we about to do dis" is a gesture that can alleviate some of the huff in international relations.
 
Ikari said:
Surprised he didn't authorize drone bombing, he loves drone bombing.
Click to expand...

Mornin Ikari. :2wave: Yeah but ISIS has Anti air......plus they are saying the Numbers in Syria are 50k. 20k non-Syrian. Way more than they have in Iraq. We better be taking pictures and get some Satellites Hovering over there.
 
polgara said:
None of our allies that I know of have backed us on this. There's a reason we don't have their support! Even the UN recognizes Assad as the rightful leader in Syria. Obama seems to be stubbornly set on doing this his way, unilaterally, which is bad news, IMO. Why is he backing the MB again- he tried it in Egypt, and the people there booted them out of power almost immediately. Very bad ju ju being brought into the picture here - do we really want to have the same things we're doing to other countries done to us? I don't think so!
Click to expand...



Well the UN did go after their funding Lady P. Also, the Brits Cameron is on this with Team BO. Might see some Brits Planes being sent to Cyprus, again. Or put on alert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom