A 'no-fly' zone necessarily involves eliminating the anti-aircraft infrastructure of the targeted nation. Some of these are mobile. These mobile radars, missile batteries and such are protected by tanks and infantry. Attacks on such formations are necessary and inevitable.
Altho a 'no fly' zone might seem to be a useful half-way step, it is in fact a way of declaring that we are at war with the nation that is targeted. Should Asaad and his gov't survive, it would be a defeat. We would be allying ourselves with the insurgents. That would involve some degree of post-war commitment.
You are wise, Mr Mann, to not necessarily favor it. Wiser than the present Republican candidate.
1. The British totally pegged Mr Romney. He's a twit! And...
2. As mentioned above, the US should absolutely NOT PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Syria and NOT throw advanced weapons into that caldron. Damn! Have we gotten stupider as time has gone on?! Did we enjoy Afghanistan mujahadin -> 9/11 the first time and think we could improve on it?!
Google map of Maaret al-Nu'man shows couple of interesting things. It's on the main roadway from Damascus to Aleppo (M-5 and M-4/5). There appears to be a good sized lake nearby and a green-colored sploch that usually indicated national parks or areas of preservation and interest. Seems there is a Crusader-Castle there built by the Hospitlars back in 1160-90 and fought over several times. Seems there is a river valley from the uplands near the Turkish border and the Med that makes this a traditional invasion route (crusaders used it). Wikipedia also notes that oil pipelines traverse the area.
A video of the 'capture' shows insurgents firing madly into the air around a dead tank. My long ago experience indicates that they would only be doing that if they were very well supplied with ammunition. (Could only carry about 5-600 rounds of 5.62 for M-16 in rucksack; didn't waste any you might need!)
The insurgents claim they previously held Maaret al-Nu'man in June and July but had to give it up under pressure. If they've retaken it, it's obviously with the intention of holding it if possible. So they have progressed to the stage of guerrilla war that they begin to hold their own territories and maintain supply lines. Mao (my guerrilla guru) would say that Assaad's gov't is doomed.
Thanks Dr Cole! You're so good at pointing your readers down paths that enlighten the "news".
Hah! Reminds me of the group of Irish college students who, after the IRA had bombed Admiral Nelson's column in Dublin (I think in '66) found Nelson's statute's head in an unguarded warehouse and confiscated it. They sold possession of the head for a week for 200Pds and paid off the debts of their University, they rented it out to people shooting commercials, they took artistic photos of Nelson's head on a beach staring out to sea. Finally tired of their game I suppose and gave it back to the authorities.
The "Fox News Latino" news website has a poll (*I have not read the internals*) that says 73% of Latinos approve of Barack's performance in office. The most approved of GOP candidate if Mr Romney (35%) and the least is Mr Santorum (9%). Of the 31% of Latinos who voted for Mr McCain, only about 1/2 would vote Repub again.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
A 'no-fly' zone necessarily involves eliminating the anti-aircraft infrastructure of the targeted nation. Some of these are mobile. These mobile radars, missile batteries and such are protected by tanks and infantry. Attacks on such formations are necessary and inevitable.
Altho a 'no fly' zone might seem to be a useful half-way step, it is in fact a way of declaring that we are at war with the nation that is targeted. Should Asaad and his gov't survive, it would be a defeat. We would be allying ourselves with the insurgents. That would involve some degree of post-war commitment.
You are wise, Mr Mann, to not necessarily favor it. Wiser than the present Republican candidate.
Oh! And before I go:
1. The British totally pegged Mr Romney. He's a twit! And...
2. As mentioned above, the US should absolutely NOT PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Syria and NOT throw advanced weapons into that caldron. Damn! Have we gotten stupider as time has gone on?! Did we enjoy Afghanistan mujahadin -> 9/11 the first time and think we could improve on it?!
Google map of Maaret al-Nu'man shows couple of interesting things. It's on the main roadway from Damascus to Aleppo (M-5 and M-4/5). There appears to be a good sized lake nearby and a green-colored sploch that usually indicated national parks or areas of preservation and interest. Seems there is a Crusader-Castle there built by the Hospitlars back in 1160-90 and fought over several times. Seems there is a river valley from the uplands near the Turkish border and the Med that makes this a traditional invasion route (crusaders used it). Wikipedia also notes that oil pipelines traverse the area.
A video of the 'capture' shows insurgents firing madly into the air around a dead tank. My long ago experience indicates that they would only be doing that if they were very well supplied with ammunition. (Could only carry about 5-600 rounds of 5.62 for M-16 in rucksack; didn't waste any you might need!)
The insurgents claim they previously held Maaret al-Nu'man in June and July but had to give it up under pressure. If they've retaken it, it's obviously with the intention of holding it if possible. So they have progressed to the stage of guerrilla war that they begin to hold their own territories and maintain supply lines. Mao (my guerrilla guru) would say that Assaad's gov't is doomed.
Thanks Dr Cole! You're so good at pointing your readers down paths that enlighten the "news".
Hah! Reminds me of the group of Irish college students who, after the IRA had bombed Admiral Nelson's column in Dublin (I think in '66) found Nelson's statute's head in an unguarded warehouse and confiscated it. They sold possession of the head for a week for 200Pds and paid off the debts of their University, they rented it out to people shooting commercials, they took artistic photos of Nelson's head on a beach staring out to sea. Finally tired of their game I suppose and gave it back to the authorities.
The "Fox News Latino" news website has a poll (*I have not read the internals*) that says 73% of Latinos approve of Barack's performance in office. The most approved of GOP candidate if Mr Romney (35%) and the least is Mr Santorum (9%). Of the 31% of Latinos who voted for Mr McCain, only about 1/2 would vote Repub again.
And ditto what Mr RW said above.