Skip to comments.Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria [The Clown & Cameron Pretend to be Tough]
Posted on 08/25/2013 3:46:24 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assads forces against his own people.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
He would look like a Giraffe?
Propaganda and a thin veneer of international law.
just made a thread...good idea.
Shhhh. Don’t let facts get in the way.
Yeah, a military leadership that promotes gay-pride festivities at overseas bases, and invites drag-queen performers on stateside bases to celebrate “diversity?” A whole institution that now elevates two degenerate queers the same status as husband-and-wife? Respect that? Have faith in that kind of leadership? Like HELL.
Just a point: the UK doesnt rely on Tomahawks. We have them, but we have our own missile.
Dude you’re protesting too much. Our military has war colleges who’s one objective is teaching war fighters how to more effectively neutralize our nation’s enemies. None of these instructors are as lathered up over the queers as you seem to be.
how many wars has mr peace prize been in now? this has to be a record.
the irony is thick
So we’re going into Syria for WMDs? WMDs that they now say they can’t find?
Is that what’s going on now?
Saddam Hussein used chemicals on the Kurds. No one disputed it. But the liberals still scream “Bush like about weapons of mass destruction!”
From now on out I will scream “Obama like about weapons of mass destruction!”
Not sure at all of the veracity of this but needs posting. If true...who leaked it to save the terrorists? Could be black ops by pro Assad regime too.:
Radio Free Syria
about an hour ago
URGENT: 26-08-2013: There are unconfirmed reports that the United Nations chemical weapons inspection team has been ordered to leave Syria immediately, with the latest reports suggesting that the upcoming US attacks, reportedly set to be launched imminently by the US military, will be targeted at the Nusra Front and other independent Islamic battalions fighting against the regime, as well as at regime chemical weapons sites.
According to the latest reports, US warships will initially launch a series of attacks with Tomahawk missiles, targeting strategic chemical weapons sites and:
1. the regimes radar network
2. the regimes air defence system
3. the regimes chemical weapons production facilities
4. the regimes stores of Scud ballistic missiles
The second wave of the US attack will see the US deploying Cruise missiles, with the main targets being
1. training centres for Nusra Front and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) battalions
2. senior regime officials and leaders of prominent Islamist battalions
3. Sharia courts
The operation will reportedly be carried out under a complete media blackout.
US forces are reportedly reportedly attacking sites in relatively untroubled areas so as not to contribute to resolving the conflict in favour of the opposition (recently described by the head of the US Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, as not supporting American interests).
A number of analysts have already suggested that this suggests the US will target the senior regime officials as a smokescreen for its real objective, of targeting mujahideen groups such as the Nusra Front and ISIS, with a predicted attack on the Presidential Palace seen as a decoy operation (in the knowledge that Bashar Assad is no longer there).
The strongest attacks are expected to take place in rural Aleppo, rural Deir el Zour, Daraa province and around the coastal area.
Independent Islamist groups have been urged to change their locations and to remain extremely alert for signs of forthcoming US attacks.
From: Syrian Revolution 2011
No, I suppose I don’t, but why these guys even stop for these idiots is beyond me. Seems like a long time to be chatting with them to then just shoot them, you’d think they do it just for fun.
To think, they’re in our countries.
As for Syria, this entire thing is a gongshow.
Calm down, the way I read it he’s just bringing up the gutting and demoralization of the military, he’s right, it’s not the same military, just like the one I served in Canada isn’t the same. It’s been changed for the worse. That’s not to say there aren’t still honourable and good people serving, it’s saying that those are the types of people facing the most persecution.
If our government helps the rebels, Al Queda, get into power, and the republicans do nothing about it, we all need to march on DC. I’m in.
I served 8 years as a naval officer including a year in Vietnam during the Tet offensive.
I'm retired now but please believe me, all of you Putin apologists don't understand or appreciate the service of the men and women that allow you to post such idiotic posts.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I don't understand why my post is idiotic. I suggest you read the post I responded to. Russia will veto any UN resolution that proposes the use of force against Syria. You have a problem with that?
He's going to blast empty warehouses, some open fields a few fish ponds off the Syrian coast and one missile on Assad's 4th summer house but that missile is just going to miss it's mark and destroy a fire hydrant.
Nothing serious here just Obama flexing his 97lb. weakling biceps.
Putin has been planning for this for 2 years. His bases in Latakia and Tartus on Syria’s Med. coast are ready and all Soviet, I mean, Russian ships have been moved safely out to sea.
Obama is going to ineffectively bomb Syria and Russia, Syria, Iran, Hizbollah and HAMAS will hit Israel and maybe Jordan. Then, Obama gets what he wants.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but what do you think Russia's reaction will be if we strike without a UN resolution to do so?
I keep wondering if this whole thing is a Russian trap. Putin conceivably can make a statement that Russia will defend it's ally if the West unilaterally attacks Syria without a U.N. resolution (which the West can't get because Russia will veto it.) This would leave Cameron/Obama in a totally untenable position. If "we" attack anyway, then as another poster suggested, Britain loses a ship or two, say, via Russian sub, and THEN what do Cameron/Obama do?
In the only polling I've seen so far (TV) the opinion was running well over 80% that we should stay out of any involvement in Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.