Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

reply to post by Indigo5

WE ARE NOT PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA....NOT HAPPENING.

You do realize, of course, you might as well have carved that deep into granite, for how likely anyone here is to ever forget such an absolute statement on this mess.

I wish I could be so certain, either way, but I sure can't. The public opinion doesn't mean squat and nothing we say or do will change the outcome. They've made it exceptionally clear that, to them, 'The Ends Justifies the Means' is an acceptable way to live life in general, not to mention national leadership.

Personally? I'll be VERY surprised if DOD serving Americans aren't already IN Syria in covert and small unit operations. I think it's so unlikely as to be laughable to think our strikes will do much more than make the situation so bad we HAVE to go in, which is the whole point I believe.


That's how this President operates. We see it on domestic issues all the time. He'll try nice and ask, then he'll just go and do something anyway, figuring he'll make it all right later when the end result has turned out well. Except, those end results rarely, if ever DO turn out well like they plan for it.

When will we realize we are sacrificing our soldiers for Saudi/Arab interests? I guess as long we get paid, we will kill anyone.

Originally posted by Indigo5
WE ARE NOT PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA....NOT HAPPENING

Then why, during the hearing, did Secretary Kerry keep that option open and not just make it clear we are merely lobbing missile to reduce Assad's capabilities? I love your absolutism; naive, but commendable nonetheless.

You don't think that our Government won't find a reason to invoke the loop-holes presented by the Senate Resolution in this regard to place boots on the ground?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The worst war criminals in the history of this world this days do not compare to the old timer criminals, the corporate dictatorship the private military complex, bankers the elite behind, all of them are the worst criminals of modern times, they make their laws, they pass their laws they create wars, they get away killing people, topple entire countries and then walk away with not a speck of guilt.

They are all criminals, all for greed, money and profits.

This just confirms an opinion of mine that's been forming since the Iraq War...the US Armed Forces are nothing more than a mercenary force. We do the dirty work of anyone who will pay the MIC, countries or corporations.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Saudi and the Emirates has been backing up with financial funding the Rebels in Syria, but which rebels we don't know because Syria have about 4 major outside factions of terrorist and 9 domestic ones all waiting for the Gift that Obamacaca is going to give them when they take the Assad government away, the real war of struggle where more civilians will die than those already been counted have not even started yet, remember US under Bush and Iraq, they didn't kept track of the death because that wasn't the job of the US

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo, Indigo, you are so faithfull to the Obama administration that have not learned from past experiences, Political whores lie, actually all the time, anybody that believe that Obamacaca is not going to put troops in the ground is a fool, sorry but that is the honest truth.

If chemical weapons has been indeed released into the population like Obamacaca and the whores behind him, who is going to make sure they are secure?.

Do you know who are the Rebels? the ones US and allies are supporting?

I will tell you, Syrian jihadist Rebels, Al-Qaida and the Muslim brotherhood, or perhaps one of the other groups waiting for the government to go down

US will put troops in the ground, unless The administration is so arrogant that they are lying about chemical weapon attack and have nothing to fear when the different factions in Syria starts to fight each other for power control.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

WE ARE NOT PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA....NOT HAPPENING.

You do realize, of course, you might as well have carved that deep into granite, for how likely anyone here is to ever forget such an absolute statement on this mess.

I do realize that...and I realized it when I wrote it. I invite you and others to remember me saying it. I follow these things closely (too closely) and my record for accuracy in predicting these things, when I have near 360 degree certainty has not failed me as long as I can remember. Please feel free to hold me accountable. People also doubted when I said Pres. Obama would win a second term or the SCOTUS would uphold Obamacare and Roberts would be the one to do it, etc....I was attacked and flamed for such outrageous predictions. I know it sounds like chest thumping, but some times I am uncertain and some times I can see scenarios from various angles and certainty materializes. This is one of those cases.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
I wish I could be so certain, either way, but I sure can't. The public opinion doesn't mean squat and nothing we say or do will change the outcome. They've made it exceptionally clear that, to them, 'The Ends Justifies the Means' is an acceptable way to live life in general, not to mention national leadership.

We have recourse in democratic elections, but it is "after the fact". So it was with Viet Nam, Iraq 1&2 and Afghanistan.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Personally? I'll be VERY surprised if DOD serving Americans aren't already IN Syria in covert and small unit operations.

If Syria afforded it..in remote geography or a decentralized, weak gov. I would agree that Spec Ops were on the ground. But we are talking City streets, not AQ hiding in the mountains. I am sure we have CIA local assets both in the rebel forces and the Syrian Gov....aka..defectors paid/asked to stay put and relay intelligence. That plus Sat. Imagery and NSA communications taps (which is what the Admin has as proof on Chem Weapons by Assad)...but outright Spec Ops on the ground? City environments make it near impossible to move freely as needed for targeting/tracking....not the desert or mountains and remote AQ camps.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Indigo5
WE ARE NOT PUTTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA....NOT HAPPENING

Then why, during the hearing, did Secretary Kerry keep that option open and not just make it clear we are merely lobbing missile to reduce Assad's capabilities? I love your absolutism; naive, but commendable nonetheless.

He explained just that in the follow-up question where he said No Boots On The Ground.

Because these hearings are awkward from a Foreign Policy/Military Strategy perspective. Publicly outlining the extent of a strike to come.

He first replied that the President must have "all options on the table"...cuz that is what they want the message to Syria to be.

In the follow-up question, when pressed, he said no boots on the ground.

It does give away a good deal to Assad, but he couldn't get around the question in the post-Iraq climate.

No doubt Kerry fumbled, but no doubt people see in that fumble what they choose to.

"Mr. Secretary, we received from the administration a proposed resolution for the authorization of force, and of course that is a negotiation between the Congress and the administration," current Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey asked. "Would you tell us whether you believe that a prohibition for having American boots on the ground -- is that something that the administration would accept as part of a resolution?"

"Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground," Kerry replied. "And I think the president will give you every assurance in the world, as am I, as has the secretary of defense and the chairman.

"But in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country."

Menendez interrupted. "If we said that there'd be no troops on the ground for combat purposes, that clearly would, I assume ...."

"Well, assuming that, in the going to protect those weapons -- whether or not they had to, you know, answer a shot in order to be secure, I don't want to speak to that. The bottom line is this -- can I give you the bottom line?" Kerry replied.

Menendez said something inaudible, but everyone was eager for the bottom line.

"I'm absolutely confident, Mr. Chairman, that it is easy -- not that complicated -- to work out language that will satisfy the Congress and the American people that there's no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the Congress doesn't want it to, while still protecting the national-security interests of the country," Kerry unspooled his answer. "I'm confident that can be worked out. The bottom line is, the president has no intention and will not, and we do not want to, put American troops on the ground to fight this -- or be involved in the fighting of this civil war, period."

www.theatlantic.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Indigo, Indigo, you are so faithfull to the Obama administration

Stopped reading right there. Life is too short for BS and baiting.

reply to post by Indigo5


I am going to tell you something, for the last few years since Obama took the presidency he is been cutting on the military budget and specially the contractors, but in the last few months, when it was not money to do any new hiring something is happening, contractors are starting to hire again, I mean more jobs that you can imagine, even after the furlongs.

You know what, I am not going to get into details, but when this type of hiring goes on, it means we are getting reading for something big.

I know this seems out of content, but my husband and I have been talking about this, because after all he will benefit greatly for a war when it comes to his work.

Now it could be nothing and I am just ranting, but let see what come on in the next few week.

I know for sure that if the US attacks Syria is going to put troops in the ground.

reply to post by Indigo5


Sorry if I seem to look like baiting, no my intention truly and honestly.

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo, just a little heads up in terms of SOP for American and British spec ops teams? Books have been written on this...so it's not like it's letting any kitties out of any bags here.

American Delta teams were on the outskirts of Bagdhad, days before any US forces were anywhere near it. CNN even choked out one report, which I'm sure they got thumped for since it wasn't repeated, that Delta was there to lase targets and evaluate defenses before US forces had crossed the border at all.

In 1990 both American and British special operations teams were deep into Central and even Northern Iraq as isolated listening posts as well as intelligence/target designation teams. That is the nature of what I almost expect is already IN Syria and standing by to assist the fast movers coming in from above. We're damned fools if we're going to be giving air support to Al Qaeda radio instructions. Good God, they'll have us putting bombs into grade schools during a school day.

reply to post by marg6043


Thanks and star.

As far as an uptick in hiring. I have friends an family within the more specialized branches of the military. I haven't seen any uptick, though they have been steadily busy with various small efforts internationally. We disagree with boots on the ground. At most I see a small UN force being sent somewhere down the road if the rebels win, with an aim of securing Chem Weapons. Even then the UN and international forces will take point IMO. I don't see US involvement going beyond air strikes and rebel support. With Obama the model is Libya (for better or for worse)...Not Bush/Afghanistan/Iraq. And with Syria Obama has even scaled back from his Libya Docterine in that this time he is going to congress despite having the War Powers Act, like he used for Libya.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by Indigo5


I try to think that it will not be involvement, but remember, supposedly Assad gas the people, so somebody have to take control of the arsenal, then the nuclear weapons, I don't think that US will let that kind of dangerous weapons go to rebels or other factions when the Assad government is taken.

At least in Iraq no body found anything and I think is because at the end US had an idea that it was nothing to be found.

This time is different Syria may be more dangerous when it comes to MWDs that Iraq was.Syria is one of five states that have no signed, and seven that have not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In my personal opinion I think that is going to be invasion, because I know for a fact that Syria will be attacked by the US very soon.

reply to post by Indigo5


And by the way, thanks, I really didn't want to sound like I was baiting you, be free to tell me if it happens again.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Indigo, just a little heads up in terms of SOP for American and British spec ops teams? Books have been written on this...so it's not like it's letting any kitties out of any bags here.

American Delta teams were on the outskirts of Bagdhad, days before any US forces were anywhere near it. CNN even choked out one report, which I'm sure they got thumped for since it wasn't repeated, that Delta was there to lase targets and evaluate defenses before US forces had crossed the border at all.

Yes. They were on the "outskirts" and that was for pre-invasion intelligence. "tip of the spear" Syria is different, more dense geography and not an invasion scenario, And there is a civil war already underway...friendlies mixed with unfriendlies, not just mapping out invasion pathways on a city or targeting. In Syria for just limited targeting, they would need to be in cities to pinpoint, and Spec-Ops can';t move in cities without detection, hell they would end up on twitter or FB. Very different scenario and geography. Just my strong opinion.

We're damned fools if we're going to be giving air support to Al Qaeda radio instructions. Good God, they'll have us putting bombs into grade schools during a school day.

Whilst the rebels have AQ factions, there are also SEVERAL moderate/secular ex-Assad Generals and lesser officials that have defected to the rebels, plus, like I said before, several different CIA assets likely within Assad's military, plus NSA communications tracking and ease-dropping, plus real-time Satellite tracking...they can watch people walk on the street now, think they know where a tank or truck moved? It affords them multiple levels of confirmation on intelligence for targeting. Spec-Ops on the ground is too much of a risk. With Afghanistan and Iraq...a full force was arriving behind those Spec-Ops...in Syria they would be highly exposed and without arriving back-up, and frankly it would be unnecessary given the tech and CIA assets available today in regards to Syria.

reply to post by marg6043


I respect your opinion on "boots on the ground" potential, but also disagree.

As far as Nuclear Weapons, Syria doesn't have them. If they did Israel would have hammered them long ago. As a matter of fact in 2007 Syria began construction on a Nuclear Reactor and Israel bombed the hell out of it. They don't have Nukes, just Chem Weapons.

reply to post by Indigo5


I hope you are right, but then again, their nuclear program has been shady for years and then no signing any treaties doesn't make it any safer.

reply to post by marg6043


Are we referring to Israel? Syria has enough nasties, chem weapons can be moved around in a shirt pocket