Syrian Crisis...2013

Yahoo News said:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's top aide on Sunday pressed the case for "targeted, limited consequential action" to degrade the capabilities of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out chemical weapons attacks as the White House mounted a major push to win support from a divided Congress and skeptical American public for a military strike.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough asserted that a "common-sense test" dictates that the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that Obama says demands a U.S. response. But he said the Obama administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week are seeking.

"This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said, part of a five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Assad.

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh. Are you kidding me? What unmitigated Bravo Sierra!

You mean like the common sense that would call for Assad openly and blatantly using chemical weapons against his own people, in his own capitol when a UN chemical weapons inspection team was in the capitol just a few miles away?

Or the common sense that Assad would use the chemical weapons at a time when he was getting the upper hand over the rebels and risk doing the very thing he knew would push the US to attacking him when he was winning?

Or the kind of common sense that would have him play directly into the hands of the Islamic rebels whom he was beating when they themselves have made videos of their own use of the same weapons?

Are all of those kinds of common sense what you're talking about?

No, any sane, rational person, looking at this with the least degree of objectivity will use their own "common sense" to tell them that the Obama administration, just like they were with the Benghazi travesty, are abject, pathological liars.

Again, and again, and again, and again.

Representative Joe Wilson had it right from the start.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

thunderchief said:

I'm certain that Kh-31 is advanced enough so in large saturation attack some will get trough.

Click to expand...

60 missiles is not a saturation attack against five AEGIS destroyers operating together with CE, and one Horizon...not even close, and particularly for this missile. But that is moot because we both agree that nowhere near that many are going to be incoming.

thunderchief said:

If all of the 60 missiles get launched , there will be hell to pay on those ships

Click to expand...

Nope. See above.

thunderchief said:

Radar horizon.

Click to expand...

E-3 AWACS, and multiple other sensors covering the area from aircraft and other vessels. In addition, as we have discussed, few of the aircraft will likely get into range to launch.

thunderchief said:

SM-2 was designed to hit larger and less maneuverable missiles ( Kh-22 , P-500 ...) and bombers ( Tu-16 , Tu-22 ...). It was upgraded but not that much.

Click to expand...

Your information is very out of date. SM has been continuously upgraded for each new threat deployed and is capable of engaging small, high speed (mulit-mach) missiles at all flight profiles, including sea skimmers.

Jeff Head said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

Oh my gosh. Are you kidding me? What unmitigated Bravo Sierra!

You mean like the common sense that would call for Assad openly and blatantly using chemical weapons against his own people, in his own capitol when a UN chemical weapons inspection team was I the capitol just a few miles away?

Or the common sense that Assad would use the chemical weapons at a time when he was getting the upper hand over the rebels and risk doing the very thing he knew would push the US to attacking him when he was winning?

Or the kind of common sense that would have him play directly into the hands of the Islamic rebels whom he was beating when they themselves have made videos of their own use of the same weapons?

Are all of those kinds of common sense what you're talking about?

No, any sane, rational person, looking at this with the least degree of objectivity will use their own "common sense" to tell them that the Obama administration, just like they were with the Benghazi travesty, are abject, pathological liars.

Again, and again, and again, and again.

Representative Joe Wilson had it right from the start.

​

Click to expand...

I know, isn't this horse, donkey, and pony show is something or what?

Equation said:

I know, isn't this horse, donkey, and pony show is something or what?

Click to expand...

It's pathetic.

In that report they ADMIT that they have no real evidence. Nothing firm at all, and so they appeal to everyone's "common sense?"

That's all they have as a cas to go to war? When they themselves have been caught lying outright so many times?

This thing has got to get defeated by the House...I hope and pray it does.

Jeff Head said:

It's pathetic.

In that report they ADMIT that they have no real evidence. Nothing firm at all, and so they appeal to everyone's "common sense?"

That's all they have as a cas to go to war? When they themselves have been caught lying outright so many times?

This thing has got to get defeated by the House...I hope and pray it does.

Click to expand...

That's the one problem with President Obama's advisers and administrators, they're good at making "common sense" excuses but not at international diplomacy or planning. And these guys are supposed to be Ivy League school graduates and top notch at their respected field, so what happen?

Maybe some rebels infiltrated the regime's ranks or bought someone there to deploy sarin against Assad's will.

cn_habs said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Maybe some rebels infiltrated the regime's ranks or bought someone there to deploy sarin against Assad's will.

Click to expand...

Kerry's meeting with Arab ministers, including from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates,........

This is all I need to know! those countries are all hard Sunni governments and very anti Assad/Shia .. of course they are going to try their darnest to implicate Assad on everything. Heck it is an open secret these governments are supporting the rebels including the radical Sunni militants many of whom are Al Queda or AQ affiliated fighters.

Sometimes I wonder if the US is backing the wrong horse in the Mid East.

also very bad news for Christians in Syria.

kwaigonegin said:

Kerry's meeting with Arab ministers, including from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates,........

This is all I need to know! those countries are all hard Sunni governments and very anti Assad/Shia .. of course they are going to try their darnest to implicate Assad on everything. Heck it is an open secret these governments are supporting the rebels including the radical Sunni militants many of whom are Al Queda or AQ affiliated fighters.

Sometimes I wonder if the US is backing the wrong horse in the Mid East.

also very bad news for Christians in Syria.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

True, but the thing is most American viewers would not know or care for the differences whether these Arab nations are Sunnis or Shiites. Therefore the administration just needs to LOOK like they are getting compliance from the various Arab nations as a political support for a military strike on Syria.

Equation said:

True, but the thing is most American viewers would not know or care for the differences whether these Arab nations are Sunnis or Shiites. Therefore the administration just needs to LOOK like they are getting compliance from the various Arab nations as a political support for a military strike on Syria.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and that to me is a damn shame! I always find it amusing if not downright scary that the average American in generally probably knows a lot less about global affairs than their peers elsewhere yet there is no denying that American foreign policy is by far the most influential and consequential when compared to every other country on earth.

It's unfortunate that the average American (maybe even a few politicians) probably can't even point out Iraq on a map let alone Syria! I blame our schools!

Jeff Head said:

...

60 missiles is not a saturation attack against five AEGIS destroyers operating together with CE, and one Horizon...not even close, and particularly for this missile. But that is moot because we both agree that nowhere near that many are going to be incoming.

...

Click to expand...

I see, but ... there was this controversy here between thunderchief and playwolf how a hypothetical attack involving at least a dozen of bombers and a dozen of fighters should, and should not, optimally be performed, with one debater saying the attacking force should come from several directions (and fighters be visible to the opposing force), and the other the opposite (approaching from one direction, all flying low); this was just a summary and I hope I didn't misinterpret what they claimed, and anybody can read their posts anyway. I have NO idea what to think (I haven't seen any modern warship until this summer (been to La Spezia), not to say about an ASM-equipped aircraft ... could you please comment, thanks! You can do it by emailing me directly (Krize1938_at_sign_seznam.cz) not to start a war here

Jeff Head said:

60 missiles is not a saturation attack against five AEGIS destroyers operating together with CE, and one Horizon...not even close, and particularly for this missile. But that is moot because we both agree that nowhere near that many are going to be incoming.

Click to expand...

Well , what do you consider as a saturation attack ?

Jeff Head said:

E-3 AWACS, and multiple other sensors covering the area from aircraft and other vessels. In addition, as we have discussed, few of the aircraft will likely get into range to launch.

Click to expand...

As far as I know , SM-2 has only SARH and IR guidance (RIM-174 not yet deployed) . That means , even if AWACS detects target , it would do no good unless Burke could illuminate it . On the other hand Horizon FFG has Aster missiles with ARH , but I doubt they could launch missiles and then let AWACS guide them over horizon

Jeff Head said:

Your information is very out of date. SM has been continuously upgraded for each new threat deployed and is capable of engaging small, high speed (mulit-mach) missiles at all flight profiles, including sea skimmers.

Click to expand...

As far as I know , SM-2 received new sensors and somewhat better boosters (thrust-vectoring control ) but basic shape remained same and size was actually increased . Kinetically , it is limited with design that dates from 50s .