Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

US considering syrian 'no fly zone'


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#16    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,271 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

View Postshrooma, on 14 June 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

America have said they're considering a syrian 'no fly zone' after alleged chemical weapon use by Assad's forces-
.
http://uk.reuters.co...E95C16E20130614
.
but with Assad claiming it was the rebels who used them, who knows what'll happen?
Russia has already publically stated that it considers the US evidence to be a 'fabrication', and the imposition of a no-fly zone would mean direct military action on behalf of America, but would Russia or Iran allow it to happen....?


you know.... I wouldn't put it past the Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups to try and frame the Assad forces by using small amounts of sarin gas

on it's own supporters....to give the US it's 'reason' to get more involved.


http://www.presstv.i...r-syria-border/

Quote

Several Turkish newspapers reported on Thursday that two kilograms of sarin gas as well as heavy weapons were discovered during raids on the homes of 12 members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front in Turkey’s southern city of Adana, located some 150 kilometers (93 miles) from the border with Syria.


http://www.telegraph...r-al-Assad.html

Quote

In a dig at Washington, Mr Ushakov referred to an incident in 2003 when US Secretary of State Colin Powell held up a model test tube of anthrax to demonstrate the supposed power of Iraqi biological weapons – which were never found.

"One wouldn't like to make a parallel with Secretary of State Powell's famous vial, but the facts presented to us do not look persuasive," said Mr Uskhakov of the Syria tests.

He added that "if the Americans truly decide and in reality provide more large-scale assistance to rebels, assistance to the opposition" it would harm prospects for an international peace conference on the Syria war.

Mr Pushkov said it did not make sense for the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons. "Why would Assad use 'a small quantity' of sarin against the fighters?" he asked. "What would be the point?! In order to give a reason for outside intervention? There's no logic in that."

In an interview with Russian media, Mr Pushkov added: "If the Syrian [rebel] fighters cannot achieve a decisive defeat of Assad, then the US government will go along a path of escalating its military involvement in the conflict."


no fly zone!....a no bull**** zone would be better.


.


#17    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,271 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:12 AM

View Postdanielost, on 14 June 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

allied with and at war with al quida.

political schizophrenia


#18    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,085 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:43 AM

View Postshrooma, on 15 June 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

.
to be honest Dan, i'm suprised anyone from the west is getting involved at all!
if russia gets involved, america gets involved, turkey, israel, iran, it could all end in a s**tstorm of biblical proportions!
very messy indeed.
fingers crossed somebody somewhere starts to see a bit of sense sometime soon.....
Iran will have a new president though i dont know if it will change anything. Iran is already involved anyway, Turkey won't and neither Israel


#19    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,271 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 15 June 2013 - 10:43 AM

.


oh dear....Tony Blair has waded in now..... :rolleyes:



http://uk.news.yahoo...37.html#APU67tt

Quote

Tony Blair has insisted the West must intervene against the Syrian government to prevent "catastrophic consequences".
The former prime minister urged Britain to help the US arm opposition forces fighting President Bashar al Assad and his regime.


Quote

"I feel very strongly that we are in danger of a failure with catastrophic consequences," Mr Blair told The Times.
"This is no longer a civil war between factions within Syria. We should be taking a more interventionist line.
"You don't have to send in troops, but the international community should think about installing no-fly zones."



Blair thought Assad was more than ok a decade ago... I wonder when he (Assad) morphed into a 'brutal dictator' ????


http://www.dailystar...x#ixzz2VzsX5X4L

Quote

BEIRUT: Official papers have revealed that the U.K. government under Tony Blair considered asking the queen of England to bestow an honorary knighthood on Syrian President Bashar Assad, The Sunday Times reported.
According to documents obtained by the U.K. daily under freedom information laws, discussions to honor Assad took place prior to his 2002 visit to Britain where he sought “as much pomp and ceremony as possible.”
On his trip, Assad met Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, had lunch with then Prime Minister Blair at Downing Street and other privileges.
The documents, according to the paper, show the lengths to which the British government went to accommodate Assad, including holding a joint press conference, manipulating media to portray Assad in a favorable light and efforts to boost his “photogenic” wife’s profile.



Shut up Tony..... just please shut up.

After your Iraq WMD lies...no-one believes a word you say anyway.



.


#20    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,149 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:19 PM

I was just reading an article about the Syrian AF today; it seems they mostly have MiG-23s and Su-22s operational, but they may also have two recce MiG-25s oeprational.

View Postbee, on 15 June 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

.


oh dear....Tony Blair has waded in now..... :rolleyes:



http://uk.news.yahoo...37.html#APU67tt



BEIRUT: Official papers have revealed that the U.K. government under Tony Blair considered asking the queen of England to bestow an honorary knighthood on Syrian President Bashar Assad, The Sunday Times reported.
According to documents obtained by the U.K. daily under freedom information laws, discussions to honor Assad took place prior to his 2002 visit to Britain where he sought “as much pomp and ceremony as possible.”
On his trip, Assad met Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, had lunch with then Prime Minister Blair at Downing Street and other privileges.
The documents, according to the paper, show the lengths to which the British government went to accommodate Assad, including holding a joint press conference, manipulating media to portray Assad in a favorable light and efforts to boost his “photogenic” wife’s profile.



Blair thought Assad was more than ok a decade ago... I wonder when he (Assad) morphed into a 'brutal dictator' ????


http://www.dailystar...x#ixzz2VzsX5X4L




Shut up Tony..... just please shut up.

After your Iraq WMD lies...no-one believes a word you say anyway.



.
At least Mrs. T remained loyal to her good friend, Augusto Pinochet, and didn't stab him in the back.

* I like the way you say he (Assad) just to make it clear. :D

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 15 June 2013 - 02:19 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#21    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,106 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 15 June 2013 - 04:05 PM

From what I understand there is no such thing as a small amount of sarin gas.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#22    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 15 June 2013 - 04:25 PM

I watch the news of the mid east and especially the Russians movements of its fleets and bombs. To think they sent their fleet to Cyprus, or part of it anyway for the first time in what, 20 years (or 30 cant remember) is "pay attention"  time to those who are getting involved. So they say they will help and protect Syria, and return bombs like for like, which of course is a hint about nukes.

And this doesn't put off the UK and US from jumping in?  Could this year see a real cards on the table time confrontation? A massive war with Russia getting well involved? It doesn't bode well,  but the news has become morbidly fascinating with all the players potentially involved.

Personally,  it sickens me that my country, the UK, feels its OK to go arm what they call the rebels - who in another situation would be branded terrorists, which is after all what they rightly are.

Anyone else think it will seriously kick off?

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#23    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 15 June 2013 - 04:31 PM

I don´t know if it will seriously kick off, but I am afraid Obama is slowly drifting towards stupidly jumping into this conflict, with this talk about "no fly zones".

Meanwhile, the Jihadists are already applauding this grandiose stupidity of the "Great Satan".

Meet Obamas best new friends:

http//www.france24.com/en/20130614-thousands-egypt-islamists-rally-syria-jihad

"I am participating in jihad in Allah's cause by prayer and by sending money"

Of course, if Barry thinks that there will be any gratefulness for his doing the dirty work for Allah´s warriors, he is sadly deluded.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#24    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,085 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 15 June 2013 - 06:16 PM

America was always going to get involved no matter which president is in charge.


#25    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 15 June 2013 - 06:20 PM

View Postseeder, on 15 June 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Anyone else think it will seriously kick off?

No, because there are not the right type of warships. Generally there are only frigates, landing ships and logistic ships. All the sort of thing needed for an evacuation, not a war. If Russia expected any war needing warships, then ships such as Admiral Kuznetsov and Peter the Great would be there, along with operational Oscar II submarines etc. There is not going to be any naval war with US. Well, not for some years when there are some full size carriers.....

Edit to add that within minutes of making this post I have been told Admiral Kuznetsov will be in Mediterranean by end of year. No exact date yet released, and it is long time to end of year and I think kettel will have boiled over by then, maybe...

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 15 June 2013 - 06:35 PM.


#26    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering that inner landscape connecting those throughout life

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 June 2013 - 06:27 PM

Great points guys.

@bee who is writing Tony Blair's talking points anyways? It seems he is just an actor and not the scriptwriter much less the director.

In other news the US No Fly Zone is now a no go and won't be happening after all.

Obama and his red line should be applied to both parties. Rebels crossed the red line with their own gas attack long enough ago to realize all is not fair in love and war but not so long ago to forget such a disparity.

Which ally already gave the rebels the chem weap capability? That is what I'd like to know...

Someone fill me in if there is no proof of rebels using sarin? If there is why is it being glossed over?

Anyways NATO will not act or bomb without Russian agreement. Too many Russian workers on the ground in Syria. We are not willing to risk bombing them via collateral damage now. A few natives dying in a village is one thing but Russian citizens dying under drone or bomb strikes is quite another.

Another question is how much will NATO pay or offer in concessions to Russia to get her to agree to do in Assad. We are not moving without their accord. Too risky to draw Russia in by creating casualties that have Russian citizenship. We will have to make it worth their time to pull out their private contractors and abandon their interests in Syria.

In any case when Russia withdraws is citizens or moves them to port then watch for the bombs to fall soon after. That might also signal the true end of the Cold War, now just a cool or even lukewarm one, and the beginning of a new world order aka cooperation instead of competition between America-Europe-Russia-and-China aka global north vs global south instead of east vs west...

Edited by The world needs you, 15 June 2013 - 06:32 PM.


#27    seeder

seeder

    Nut Cracker

  • Member
  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK. There if you need me

  • Never forget that only the weak fish swim with the stream, and a lie travels half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Posted 15 June 2013 - 06:46 PM

View PostThe world needs you, on 15 June 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:



In other news the US No Fly Zone is now a no go and won't be happening after all.


Have you got a link to that news pls?

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me... It's all the rabbit poop you stumble over on your way down...
“It's easier to fool people - than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  Mark Twain

#28    Jessica Christ

Jessica Christ

    jeanne d'arc, je te suivrai

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Location:Currently entering that inner landscape connecting those throughout life

  • It seems so important now but you will get over.

Posted 15 June 2013 - 07:40 PM

View Postseeder, on 15 June 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Have you got a link to that news pls?

For some reason the Western media is not fully reporting that decision or the opinions that it would be a violation of international law.

In my opinion the US was just mentioning it as a ploy of some sort. It does signal they are going to become more involved but not this way perhaps.

Whatever the case this is between NATO and Russia and it could have been a way to pressure Russia in which case they did not publicly react except to call it on its legality.

My forecast is that since this seems to be about stopping a competing Russian-Iranian-Syrian pipeline against the already established Turkey-Israel pipeline, that somehow NATO members and Russia will come to some agreement to allow the pipeline to continue but cutting in the NATO members on the deal so that Russia cannot again hold Europe hostage by cutting off the supplies as they did a few years ago in the middle of winter.

In the end America or Europe has no hardcore interests in Syria to protect—just an interest in stopping the competing pipeline from being built. If Russia and NATO members can strike a deal we might see the beginning of the end for this little Syrian destabilization effort of ours. Russia is going to have to get heavy concessions but likewise give some of the new pipeline profits up or full control, possibly redirecting is to portions of it pass through our allied borders.

Russia cannot be happy over this Syrian meddling we have done, just as Europe was not happy with them cutting off supplies midwinter, but we are going to have to work with them in the end and they wish us.

We can call the score even now, sorry Syria had to suffer so much. Of course this is the optimal view which might not kick in until the dust has settled which could be after the next G8 meeting, or two years, or ten years from now...que in another Syrian sigh.


No Fly Zone a no go even if McCain and the State Dept. are casting doubts on that being definitive

McCain & Co. might be posturing for the internal domestic debate but the message seems clear from the WH

Quote

Johannesburg: United States government has declined mounting 'no-fly zone' in Syria and said that it is difficult, dangerous and costly and will not be correct for halting close quarters ground battles.

The statement has come after US officials had vowed to bolster military aid to the Syrian rebels and were expected to send some arms for the first time, News 24 reports.

Deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes admitted that vaulting a 'no-fly zone' in Syria will bring several logistical and strategic challenges along and will make the defence even tougher as Syria does not possess a strong air defence system such as that in Libya.

Rhodes further claimed that certain rebels and forces had been fighting 'block by block in cities' with Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime in a bid to make targeting particular forces difficult, adding that strategic approaches such as 'no-fly zone' will not stop an intense sectarian conflict,
although Washington is not ruling out options.

The advisor also said that US is not promoting its national interest in pursuing an open-ended military engagement through a no-fly zone in Syria. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki has however rejected reports that a 'no-fly zone' had been decided upon, though he said that US President Barack Obama can still consider the option.

*snip*

From Zee News in India: White House rules out 'no-fly zone' in Syria


Quote

WASHINGTON: The White House on Friday all but ruled out the notion of mounting a no-fly zone in Syria, billing it as difficult, dangerous and costly, and unsuitable to halting close quarters ground battles.

A day after US officials pledged to stiffen military help to Syrian rebels, likely moving towards sending some form of arms for the first time, they made it clear that swift US mission creep in the country is not on the cards.

Deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said mounting a no-fly zone in Syria poses significant logistical and strategic challenges that are more acute than those faced by Nato and Arab League allies in Libya in 2011.

“It’s dramatically more difficult and dangerous and costly in Syria, for a variety of reasons,” Rhodes said.

“One is that in Libya, you already had a situation where the opposition controlled huge portions of the country and you could essentially protect those portions of the country from the air.

“You do not have the same types of air defense system that exist within Syria. So in that regard, it’s more difficult.”


Rhodes also argued that in many cases, rebels and forces fighting with Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime were “fighting in some instances block by block in cities” in a way that made targeting particular forces difficult.

“I think people need to understand that the no-fly zone is not some type of silver bullet that is going to stop a very intense and, in some respect, sectarian conflict,” Rhodes said, stressing though that Washington was not ruling out options, some strategic approaches would not work.

“We don’t at this point believe that the US has a national interest in pursuing a very intense, open-ended military engagement through a no-fly zone in Syria at this juncture.”

US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice took a similar tack when asked about a possible no-fly zone in New York.

“That option has some downsides and limitations that we are very well aware of and will factor into any decision,” said Rice, who will next month take over as Obama’s National Security Advisor at the White House.

Domestic opponents of the White House have demanded that Obama set up a no-fly zone in Syria to protect refugees and rebels from air strikes.

Republican Senator John McCain said Thursday that the United States should be able to set up a no-fly zone “fairly easily,”

*snip*

From the Borneo Post: US shoots down Syria ‘no fly zone’ idea




The reasons why it is a no go: costly and ineffective to defend soft interests alone when we have no hard interests on the ground


Quote

(Reuters) - The White House said on Friday it would be dramatically more difficult and costly to set up a no-fly zone over Syria than it was in Libya, stressing that the United States does not have a national interest in pursuing that option.

"We feel like the best course of action is to try to strengthen a moderate opposition," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told a news briefing.

He said the United States did not want to send U.S. troops - or "boots on the ground" - to Syria and said enforcing a no-fly zone over the country could require intense, open-ended U.S. military engagement.


From Reuters: White House says Syria no-fly zone would be costly and difficult


Additional reading:


From ABC News: Will a No-Fly Zone Really Work in Syria?




And a No Fly Zone would be illegal at least according to Russia...


Quote

London: The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has said that any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria using US fighter jets and Patriot missiles from Jordan would violate international law.

Lavrov’s comments on Saturday underline the challenge facing the US at the G8 summit next week where the White House hopes to get international support for further intervention in Syria.

Russia, which has protected President Bashar Al Assad from three UN security council resolutions aimed at pressuring him to end the violence, vehemently opposes any foreign military intervention in the conflict.

“There have been leaks from western media regarding the serious consideration to create a no-fly zone over Syria through the deployment of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles and F-16 jets in Jordan,” Lavrov said. “You don’t have to be a great expert to understand that this will violate international law.”


From Gulf News in the United Arab Emirates: No-fly zone over Syria ‘will violate international law’


Additional reading:


From The Jerusalem Post: Russia says illegal to impose no-fly zone over Syria


From NPR in the United States: Russia Says No-Fly Zone Over Syria Would Be Illegal



Edited by The world needs you, 15 June 2013 - 08:08 PM.


#29    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,106 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 15 June 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postseeder, on 15 June 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

I watch the news of the mid east and especially the Russians movements of its fleets and bombs. To think they sent their fleet to Cyprus, or part of it anyway for the first time in what, 20 years (or 30 cant remember) is "pay attention"  time to those who are getting involved. So they say they will help and protect Syria, and return bombs like for like, which of course is a hint about nukes.

And this doesn't put off the UK and US from jumping in?  Could this year see a real cards on the table time confrontation? A massive war with Russia getting well involved? It doesn't bode well,  but the news has become morbidly fascinating with all the players potentially involved.

Personally,  it sickens me that my country, the UK, feels its OK to go arm what they call the rebels - who in another situation would be branded terrorists, which is after all what they rightly are.

Anyone else think it will seriously kick off?

All rebels are and have been terriosts.  Because they cannot stand up in a standerd fight with the government forces.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#30    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,085 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 15 June 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postdanielost, on 15 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

All rebels are and have been terriosts.  Because they cannot stand up in a standerd fight with the government forces.
Hezbollah are terrorists too





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users