Boots on the ground (Syria)

So according to Kerry and Obama, there will be no boots on the ground in Syria.

What i fail to understand is how can they say there will be no boots on the ground, when its no secret, Syria has massive amounts of Chemical weapons of mass destruction, so when we the west bomb the crap out of Syria back into the 10th century, who is going to secure all these weapons of mass destruction, so rebel forces and rouge groups don't get there hands on them.

Its impossible to say we won't have boots on the ground as its plain insanity and lack of pre-planning surely , are we to go by faith, that Al Nusa and Al-Qeada and of the rest of the arm gangs roaming around Syria won't touch these weapons.

Al Nusa and Al-Qeada and other militant gangs have no regard for international law.

The simple fact is, we can't bomb Syria without a massive force on the ground to secure and depose of these chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

If we bomb Syria without a serious ground force the world will be a more dangerous place, and if we send in a ground force, you can pretty much guarantee it will lead to a world war.



The general public are being spun a incredible lie about it being a limited strike.

We all know its not about the Syrian people and all about pipelineistan.

Boots on the ground have always been on the agenda, but if the public were to know this, they wouldn't accept it, so they will tell you once the bombing starts, that dew to unforeseen circumstance on the ground, they need to put boots on the ground.

This is a war of deals not bullets

Pepe Escobar

There are boots on the ground already, and have been since the beginning of the Syrian crisis.

These boots are paid mercenaries, and the CIA thought they would suffice. However these troops are poorly trained and equipped, and can do not stand a real chance against a real Army, like the SAA.

And this is where the airstrikes come in handy. They aim to cripple SAA airports as well as the command and control structure, and the communications capabilities. They think this will give their little Al-CIA-da mercenaries a tactical advantage and tip the balance in their favour.

In my personal opinion, they mainly aim to draw a response from Iran in order to have a reason for striking Iran. Syria is the gatekeeper and a strong ally.

You make a really good point, once we bomb them, those chemical weapons could easily get into the hands of Al Quada - if they haven't already!

So let's take the assumption that Assad is keeping tons of chemical weapons in secure locations, and we bomb those. Well, aren't they just going to spill out like candy? It's like a pinata for goodness sake!

You don't get the goods until it breaks open.

reply to post by snapperski


That is exactly my point, this will be anything but limited.
Or it is what they want to happen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They keep telling that it will be a limited intervention, only to degrade Assad and his army, but this cannot be just limited.
The goal is to oust Assad and to help the rebels, people are even trained to go and fight alongside the rebels.
hundreds of millions are already spend on Syria to support and supply the rebels.
There is much more to this than the chemical attack which is most likely used to force a good reason to intervene.
And let's assume the US goes to war, shoot missiles at targets in Syria for 1 or 2 days, and than what?
Let's say they do a really good job and the rebels win, that will mean that the terrorist groups have access to the chemical weapons of Syria.
I don't think we want that.

This is somewhat off topic, I know, but it makes sense to me now when I think of how Saddam hid his WMDs in Syria when we invaded Iraq and we didn't do anything to stop it.

The USA knew about the WMDs in Iraq because we gave them to Saddam. We knew about and allowed Syria to hide them in order to set them up at some future date under the same pretext as Iraq.

There will be boots on the ground in Syria as sure as there were boots on the ground in Iraq.

Originally posted by darkbake
You make a really good point, once we bomb them, those chemical weapons could easily get into the hands of Al Quada - if they haven't already!

Al Qaeda have them already, but its not Al Qaeda as we know them, in Siria Al Qaeda are called THE REBELS...

Originally posted by snapperski
So according to Kerry and Obama, there will be no boots on the ground in Syria.

What i fail to understand is how can they say there will be no boots on the ground, when its no secret, Syria has massive amounts of Chemical weapons of mass destruction, so when we the west bomb the crap out of Syria back into the 10th century, who is going to secure all these weapons of mass destruction, so rebel forces and rouge groups don't get there hands on them.

More importantly, if they were to bomb the hell out of their munitions dumps, wouldn't that release the chemicals anyway???

Korg.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
There are boots on the ground already, and have been since the beginning of the Syrian crisis.

These boots are paid mercenaries, and the CIA thought they would suffice. However these troops are poorly trained and equipped, and can do not stand a real chance against a real Army, like the SAA.

And this is where the airstrikes come in handy. They aim to cripple SAA airports as well as the command and control structure, and the communications capabilities. They think this will give their little Al-CIA-da mercenaries a tactical advantage and tip the balance in their favour.

In my personal opinion, they mainly aim to draw a response from Iran in order to have a reason for striking Iran. Syria is the gatekeeper and a strong ally.

You are right and one of them I know and he is uniformed not a merc. Hope he survives! Heck we got boots on ground in Iran most of the time and many other places...

Pretty sure we got pictures of the guys in Iran who picked up our stealth drone as they were doing it