More About Our Attack On Syria

[sid]

This is just one paragraph from a large article about the attack in today's Jerusalem Post.


"As the attack unfolded, Moscow claimed that 71 out of 103 missiles were intercepted by Russian-made Syrian air defenses. But US defense officials said on Saturday that there was "zero" engagement, suggesting there might have been a private de-confliction agreement."

[dave]

One of the Generals (3 star) said on fox this AM 'Russian Missiles were not deployed'.

[togor]

I doubt Russia wants Assad using the gas, as he can win without it. As long as the strike targets are carefully chosen, and certain notice given, cooler heads prevail. All for the best.

[RED]

I doubt Russia wants Assad using the gas, as he can win without it.

The war against Assad in Syria has been going on since 2011, 400.000 Syrians are dead and he is no closer to winning than he was then. So if you know how Assad can win (with or without gas) you could become rich beyond all belief...

[Jiminvirginia]

At this point a "win" for Assad would be finding a country that will take him and let him live quietly for the rest of his life. He has already lost. If he exits now he may avoid being dragged through the streets.

[togor]

The war against Assad in Syria has been going on since 2011, 400.000 Syrians are dead and he is no closer to winning than he was then. So if you know how Assad can win (with or without gas) you could become rich beyond all belief...

Actually he is closer than he was then. The gas is used to break the spirit of the rebels, but HE can do that just as well, if with a bit more time. In any event, cruise missiles on his chem sites aren't going to turn the war around either. Trump uses them (correctly I believe) in an attempt to keep gas use from being normalized. The Kurds in the north have a stable front line and our troops there are for fighting ISIS, not the Syrian army (who has good reason not to attack them). I would hate to see us pull those guys out and see the Kurds get rolled up. The Kurds been stable allies, good fighters, and get shat on by every tin-horn dictator in the region. Leave our troops there with them for now, for "leverage", to use one of Trump's favorite words.

[m1ashooter]

I don't see how a person could unify Syria as split as it is. You have the Turks facing the Kurds in the North and other rebel factions controlling different parts of the country. Its a mess.

[Allen]

I didn't know we had troops in Syria much less 2000 of them.

https://www.stripes.com/pentagon-us-has-4-times-as-many-troops-in-syria-than-previously-disclosed-1.501106

[RED]

I didn't know we had troops in Syria much less 2000 of them.

https://www.stripes.com/pentagon-us-...losed-1.501106

Come on Allen, we've had troops in Syria for years and we have troops in dozens of _hit holes over the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_KwjP3o2c

How many and for how long is classified.

Apparently our guys engaged the Russians a few months ago and 200 - 300 Russians died as the result. Places like Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia and other African nations welcome our troops. They are not welcomed in places like Las Angelas, San Francisco.

In our recent attacks, the highly touted Russian anti missile systems were not used as Putin threatened. Every since WWII the Russian military capabilities have been exaggerated. The U-2's proved that back in the 60's, their military is no better than today. They have some really (on first glance) high tech weapons but they are extremely rare and limited productions and not a practical threat when they leave Russia.

[Allen]

Come on Allen, we've had troops in Syria for years and we have troops in dozens of _hit holes over the world.

Obviously I knew about the ships in the area and the planes patroling Syria but didn't know about the ground troops.

[leftyo]

as far back as during obamma's time in office we have had troops in syria.

[dryheat]

We've been in the middle east since they discovered oil.