Looks like we're going into Syria.

The place for anything at all...
User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:06 am

It depends. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is supposedly going into closed session today to get a classified briefing on what our current intel is regarding this whole mess. Yesterday, Kerry basically said that we've got a smoking gun regarding intel on the Syrians, that it was a deliberate move and that they had radioed various units in the area to prepare MOPP gear in anticipation of the strike. Supposedly they were also making noises about doing it as a provocation to see how far they could go without incurring an international response. Now, from what I can tell from a brief search on the internet, the current rumor is that this is actually Israeli intel they're going off of, and that is seriously suspect in my mind if that's the case. More so, because it feels purposefully designed to incite a U.S. response. Regardless, we won't know for years what is being reported to the Senate. Ultimately it depends on exactly what goods they really have on Assad. Unfortunately, State and Defense are in lock-step and really pushing this, so I suspect this may be for real. Swearing on national TV that there will be no troops on the ground was clearly calculated to get a yes-vote.

Highly worrisome.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:36 am

this week will be intense Obama addresing nation voting in senate,but i think at the end congres would deny strike and obama wont order strike.
you dont use cruise missles for precison strikes in citys but ballistc missles witch are more accurate.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:24 pm

Well, I will say that I'm cautiously optimistic about this new Russian proposal to have Russian forces take control of the Syrian chemical munitions. That would elegantly resolve all of the apparent issues here.
Generally, you don't use ballistic missiles against population centers unless they're nuclear tipped. Ballistic delivery systems such as ICBMs have accuracy measured in miles - which is close enough for weapons of mass destruction delivery, but not for precision strikes. Cruise missiles often are equipped with precision guidance packages (though not always). The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (T-LAM), for instance, has a primary terrain comparison package (and rumored to have a GPS guidance assistance package as a backup), but the Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (T-ASM) has an inertial guidance package that can get the vehicle in the general area of a target, but the real purpose is to get it into position in order to transition to terminal active-radar homing mode -- useful for attacks against shipping, but which is completely useless against land targets. To the naked-eye, they're essentially identical weapons, but if you wanted to use a T-ASM against a land target, you could hit the right city, or maybe the right district in the city, but that's about as accurate as it gets.

The accuracy of a weapon is more a function of the guidance package, than the delivery profile. Against land targets, you have several options:

1. Inertial guidance coupled with terrain comparison (ITERCOM): Basically this is an inertial guidance system -- that is, a system that records changes in inertia from a known geographical point (ie: the launch point), to make a guess as to the vehicle's location. The down-side to inertial guidance is that due to all sorts of technical reasons (including minute variations in gravitational forces due to uneven density in the earth's crust), this leads to "drift" in the position estimate. Because of this, a terrain comparison scheme is used in tandem to periodically update the positional fix. Terrain comparison uses a digital map stored in onboard memory, and that map is compared to the terrain observed below and around the vehicle. The down-side is that atmospheric conditions can degrade the accuracy of the guidance scheme, plus the tendency of the onboard systems to misinterpret the terrain it is observing (which is a fancy way of saying "it gets lost sometimes"). Often a GPS system will be used as a tertiary backup...

2. Global Positioning System (GPS): Famously the guidance package of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), GPS uses signals transmitted by the Global Postioning System satellites, which are primarily used for nautical, aviation, and terrestrial navigation, to triangulate its position and then use that data to steer itself against a known position. The down-side is that it can only be targeted against fixed targets (if it moves, there's no chance). More importantly, triangulation is much easier if the altitude is known (a two-dimensional fix). If the altitude must also be determined (a three-dimensional fix), it become somewhat more complex a task mathematically. As such, depending upon the release altitude, and how clear a signal it gets, GPS guidance can be either very precise, or not very precise at all. This is under ideal conditions. To make matters more complex, the GPS signals from the satellites can be jammed with the right gear. GPS is a great system to get fairly accurate precision guidance at low-cost, but you wouldn't want to use it if collateral damage is absolutely not an option.

3. Laser guidance: This is the guidance scheme for the "Paveway" munitions. The launching platform (or another platform, for that matter) "paints" the intended target with a laser and the weapon homes in on the reflected light. This scheme is highly accurate and is typically what is used in urban areas. The down side is that these systems are relatively expensive, are vulnerable to atmospheric interference (a fancy way of saying "it doesn't work so well in clouds"), and somewhat more importantly, the lasing platform has to stay exposed to anti-aircraft fire for the entire evolution from launch to impact.

4. Electro-Optic (EO), and Imaging Infrared (IIR): These schemes are the guidance packages for the Walleye and Maverick weapons (depending upon the specific variant of those weapons in question). Electro optic uses a television camera in the nose of the weapon which the operator onboard the launching platform, selects a target on the screen, and the weapon steers itself toward the image. Imaging Infrared is basically the same thing but uses a thermal imager instead of a visible-light camera. The down-side is that whole cloud-thing again, and it needs a fair amount of contrast, so EO can't be used in poor light conditions, and even camouflage works against it, and IIR doesn't work so well against a hot target on a hot background (like a desert at midday).

5. Command: This is the oldest form of precision guidance, and dates back all the way to the German Fritz-X guided bomb from World War II. Essentially, it uses an operator in either the launching platform, or in an observation platform to visually track the weapon and manually steer it via radio-control. The down-side is that it suffers from all of the problems with laser guidance and compounds it with the fact that it's really friggin' hard to do in the first place.

Then there's the last option for precision guidance: Take a "dumb" bomb, push the aircraft over into a vertical dive, aim directly at the target, and only release at the last moment and pull up just before you crash into the target, and hope that you judged your altitude right. Believe it or not, this is the delivery profile most often used in actual combat -- because "smart" bombs are always less-smart than the pilot.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:32 am

ok thanks for correcting and explaning too me uniform.

If we accept Assad idea of him giving us his chemical weapons whats keeping him from keeping small part for himself?

if he keeps small portion of chemical weapons is Win-Win situation for him america freezes strike plans and UN is happy so he has no need too wory about foregin intervention and presure.Plus smaller portion is easier too secure.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:30 am

There is always that concern, however this would actually complicate Assad's position somewhat, ironically. Syria has long attempted to officially deny that they have chemical weapons (all the while hinting and otherwise making sure others in the region -- specifically Israel -- know or suspect that they do have them). By turning over the lion's share of their weapons, they explicitly acknowledge possession of such weapons. At that point, actually using such weapons becomes highly troublesome from a diplomatic perspective, since they've already admitted they have them. Truthfully, I'm still not sold on the idea that Assad actually ordered their use. I think it happened at a much lower level, and if so, it's entirely possible that Assad might want to get those weapons out of the conflict as much as the UN does. Remember, that those weapons were intended as a deterrent force against external threats, most importantly Israel. If you're using them domestically, you have to worry about collateral damage -- like gas clouds drifting from the district of your own capital you want to hit into the surrounding neighborhoods where the families of your supporters live. Also, Syria is a desert, and chemical weapons can often contaminate surface water supplies. Most importantly, the mere existence of those weapons is making it harder and harder, politically, for his closest remaining ally (Russia) to support him.

Truthfully, I'm not really all that concerned about Assad having chemical weapons. I'm concerned that he's going to go down at the end of this and the Sunni religious fruitcakes are going to take over and inherit his chemical weapons stockpile. Any action that reduces that (frankly, nightmarish) prospect, is a good thing in my opinion. That it gives Obama a convenient exit from this mess is just icing on the cake.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:40 am

i read yesterday that rebels are planing attacking izrael with chemical weapons from regime held land too prevoke US attack.

i hope we get the chemical weapons if rebels gets them things could become dangerus and i think regime has capability too build nuclear weapon or at least dirty bombs
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:05 pm

The rebels attacking Israel would be somewhat ambitious. Even if they have captured any of the chemical weapons, they still need a delivery platform. The Israelis have one of the most heavily defended borders in the world, and attacking across that is a tricky proposition. They could give them to Hezbollah and have them smuggle the weapons into the country and do a terrorist attack with them, but Hezbollah are Shiite, and the rebels, mainly Sunni, so I don't see that as plausible. Besides, the likelihood that they would be identified makes it a really dumb idea if you consider that they already have enough on their plates in fighting the Syrian military, with Russian backing, Hezbollah with Iranian backing, and party loyalists -- without risking the United States changing sides against them.

As far as the Syrians having nuclear weapons, I'm pretty confident that the Israelis took care of that a few years back when they bombed their only suspected enrichment plant. They could conceivably get the Russians to sell them material, but the Russians (despite the fact that the Syrians are their allies in the region), have even greater mistrust for the Arabs than we do, so I seriously doubt it.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:25 pm

you forgeting dirty bombs witch can be build and it isnt hard to do it but its area denial weapon but still unleash some nasty stuff
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:36 pm

No. For a dirty bomb, they first have to get the material. Depending upon what the situation on the ground in Syria actually is, that may or may not be a real concern. Nonetheless, dirty bombs have the exact same issues as chemical munitions. Yes, you can use them as terrorism weapons (as opposed to tactical, military weapons), but then you still have the issue of getting them inside the country in the first place. The Israelis keep their borders pretty well secured, so this is no small feat. Otherwise, you're back at using more conventional tactical employment means, which (as stated before) is orders of magnitude greater in complexity, and the Israelis are seriously well equipped and prepared to deal with in any case. On that note, the Israeli civilian populace (the assumed target of such an attack) is one of -- if not the best equipped and prepared civilian population in the world as far as this sort of attack goes, so actual casualties are going to be significantly less than in pretty much any other country in the world. The rebels attacking Israel is really a non-issue. I'd be more concerned about the Syrian government forces attacking Israel as a way of undercutting the rebels, politically, by making it an Arab-Israeli thing -- and even that I sort of discount.

One other thing: The issue of dirty bombs has gotten a lot of attention in the media and for some reason it pushes this strange fear-button on civilians, but in real terms, chemical weapons are waaaay more difficult to deal with, both in terms of casualties, and mitigation activities, than dirty bombs are. I'm not real sure where this public obsession with dirty bombs comes from, but it's not a really effective method of attack (even against a relatively ill-prepared civilian populace, like the United States). If it were, you would see military forces developing radiological weapons for use on the battlefield (which, to my knowledge none are).

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:54 pm

uniform getting material for dirty bomb its easy,as for usage i meant inside of syria
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:54 am

*shrugs*
Eh. It's easier than I would prefer (certainly easier than getting material enriched enough for a true atomic weapon), but not exactly as easy as it's commonly made out to be. These rebels don't have the resources to do it on their own hook. That means that they would have to stumble across a Syrian government cache somewhere (assuming that such even exists), or somebody would need to give it to them. Now, they certainly have significant backers, like Saudi Arabia, but nobody who likely has ready access to such materials. It would have to be somebody with either a nuclear weapons program or a nuclear power reactor of some sort. In that part of the world, that really narrows the field down, and most everyone left isn't on good terms with the Sunni rebels in Syria.

My apologies, I thought you were referencing your earlier remarks regarding using unconventional weapons against Israel. Question: If they use it domestically inside Syria, what would be the purpose? Ultimately, any such action could only serve to reduce the diplomatic pressure on Assad. I'm not sure I understand the logic.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:59 am

hospials have nuclear material there they could get it.

offtopic: im not curently worried much about syria, earths finest nation is doing something dangerus again
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:12 am

Not really. The volumes needed for an effective dirty bomb are rather greater than those found in radio-therapy sources. The only instance of such a radiological source causing casualties (if my memory serves) was in the 1980s in Brazil, and then primarily because most of them actually ingested (as in ate) the material.

And if the nation you are referring to is the U.S. then I regretfully agree.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:23 am

U.S no im talking about North Korea
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:57 am

Well, yes. Dennis Rodman coaching their basketball team is sort of scary.
:D

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:31 pm

not that they are restarting their nuclear reactor witch is 60+years old and outdated
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:48 pm

Y'know what? It turns out I'm actually psychic:

I foresee Kim Jong Un saber-rattling, and ultimately overtly threatening the South with war -- then backing off and offering to shut down the reactor as an olive branch in exchange for more foreign aid.

If we're lucky, maybe they'll f*** up and blow themselves up.

North Korea: One of the few countries that would actually be improved by a nuclear explosion.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:56 pm

if that reactor fails things could be like Chernobyl but on much smaller scale china and south korea will be in troubles. if reactor works 6kg plutonium per year that could be used for weapons.

back on topic i think things are settling down because assad has aggred to hand over chemical weapons
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Reactor accidents tend to drop most of their fallout in the local vicinity (they don't tend to run as hot as, say a nuclear weapon does, so less of the radioactive crap gets captured by the Jetstream). The other little quirk is that the NKs intentionally sited it at Yongbyong -- very far away from South Korea, specifically to keep it safe(er) in the event of a war with the South. If the silly thing does pop, the NKs will ruin a whole butt-load of their precious and scarce cropland (as well as proletariat -- but they don't really care as much about them), and most of what falls outside their borders will be in China and Russia (who have a history of backing the Kims). I won't be shedding too many tears for any of that lot. The lion's share of what comes down elsewhere will be in the ocean. If any significant amount of fallout comes down in South Korea, it will be entirely due to bad luck with regard to prevailing weather.

As far as nuclear weapons goes, North Korea isn't all that much of a threat. The Kims have always viewed those weapons as a convenient way to threaten their neighbor to the south, but that's about as far as it will ever go. The reality is that North Korea seriously fears the South -- and not because of any perceived military threat. Everyone on that peninsula knows darn well just how much of a disparity there is between the living standards between the two countries -- and exactly who's to blame. Even if they wanted to attack the South (or anybody else, for that matter), they don't have the delivery systems to do it. Their Taepodong missile just isn't up to the task. Lastly, they know darn well that if they did nuke South Korea or Japan, the United States would turn Pyongyang into a really big parking lot.
I hope so.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:09 am

assad is having an illusion hes in control but he isnt, demanding that us abort strike plans and then after one month he will give us chemical weapons who is that dumb that would agree on something like this? i would give him 3 days if he doesnt agree i would order strike.
Image

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Terastas » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:54 am

Jong-Un's already lost a good ton of his credibility as a potential threat.

If you missed it, here's a brief summary of how it happened:
1: Pyeongchang, South Korea won its bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics.
2: North Korea announced it was going to build some kind of luxury ski resort (apparently in retaliation).
3: Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs blocked a deal to supply Pyongyang with mechanical chairlifts and cable cars, which had already been turned down completely by other companies with respects to the trade sanctions.
4: Kim Jong-Un has a temper tantrum.

For all their clout and showboating, they're coming undone because the international committee won't let the top brass have their toys.

Assad's slowly crumbling in a similar fashion. First he sabre-rattled at the U.N. and U.S., then there weren't any chemical weapons, then there were but they were being used by the rebels, and now he has them and he's willing to forfeit them.

Personally, I'm not expecting any real kind of military intervention. Sounds more like the option's just remaining on the table to keep Assad from changing his mind again.

Biggest reason the situation is complicated, frankly, is because the House of Representatives is utterly devoted to complicating everything as much as possible. For them, this is just another opportunity for them to try to make Obama look bad and score cheap political points before the 2014 midterms. Yeah, they're against military intervention now, but they'll be for it again before you know it.
Image

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:04 am

offtopic:he builds winter resorts and restarts potentionaly dangerus reactor but getting food for his people no

ontopic:US can wait but izrael is trigger happy they could attack and turkey could help
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:37 pm

That's the real tragedy in all of this. If they're really dedicated to ousting Assad, all they have to do is arm the rebels, but they've been dicking around because the rebels are mainly Sunni-Wahabbi whackos, who are easily worse than Assad, and nobody wants to be caught selling Stingers to the mujahaddin... Oh, wait. That was, like, three wars ago...
:roll:
I reiterate: I'm still not sure why we want to get rid of Assad. He's a stabilizing force in that neck of the woods. Yeah, he's an evil f***tard -- but he's a secular evil f***tard.
Yeah. I love how Rubio argued vehemently for half an hour in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for military action against Syria -- and then voted against it just to shaft Obama. What a douchebag.
A. Turkey is not going to attack anybody (except maybe the Kurds).

and

B. Yes, the Israelis are decidedly trigger-happy. Who are they going to attack, though? They're not fans of the Assad regime, but their biggest headaches in the region, right now are Hamas (Sunni-Arab), and Hezbollah (Shiite-Arab). Assad is Alawite, so attacking him does no real good. If he goes down in this, Hezbollah are still safe and secure in Lebanon, so no-joy there, and if the Sunni whackos in the Syrian rebellion win, that can only strengthen Hamas and weaken the (more) moderate Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.

That's not to say that the Israelis won't do something monumentally stupid (history certainly seems to favor it, especially given that Netanyahu is back in charge over there), but the logic really isn't there.

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Terastas » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:36 pm

Just one problem with that argument: Syria isn't stable.

Even from a pragmatic douchebag's point of view, Assad has no benefits. So now the more pragmatic thing to do would be to cripple his regime so the Syrians can hurry up getting a new a** on his throne.
Israel is so trigger-happy because, as UTS said, there's no shortage of targets with which to keep them occupied. The only way I could envision them getting involved is if Assad launched a Hail Mary appeal to the psychopaths by attacking them first.

On the other hand, Turkey's prime minister has already expressed a belief that Syria can't get any worse by Assad's removal. Near as I can guess, the only reason they haven't intervened yet is because Mr. Cold-War-Aint-Over-Yet in Russia is standing by Assad, ergo they want the support of the international community (or at least the U.S.) first.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:58 am

Here's my take: Neither was Iraq when you got right down to it -- but Saddam Hussein kept the lid pretty tightly on that particular garbage can for about three decades. Moreover, he quite nicely counterbalanced the Iranians (in the strategic sense) for much of it.
Again I point to Tehran in 1979. Just because Shah Reza Pahlavi was a total douchebag, doesn't mean that Grand Ayatollah Khomeni was a desirable alternative. The most likely replacement for Assad is going to be a Sunni-Wahabbi equivalent of Khomeni -- and he'll have chemical weapons. No, I like Assad just fine.
Truthfully, I think there's a few reasons that the Turks aren't getting any more involved in this mess than they have to. They've got a few internal problems to deal with. First off, they've got the Kurdish separatist movement (a problem that we have greatly exacerbated by our intervention in Iraq, by the way). That causes a draw on their military forces. Then there's the internal political aspect. They've been going through a gradual Islamic revolution over the last two decades that's weakened the old secular political structure dating all the way back to Attaturk. The government doesn't want to get sucked into anything that smacks of a struggle between the Muslim Middle East and the godless West. Just being a part of NATO is giving them domestic political headaches right now. Then, as you've mentioned, there's the Russian threat to their north. Those guys remember well forty years of the Soviet menace staring them down with nukes and before that, centuries of on-again, off-again warfare. The Turks actually remember their history. Getting into a snit with the Russians is something that makes them highly uncomfortable. Getting in a snit with the Russians over a few hundred thousand dead Syrians is something that likely makes little sense to them. Thus, I don't see them doing anything more than token gestures even with American involvement.
Last edited by Uniform Two Six on Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply