PDA

View Full Version : Obama Sending Arms to Syria


Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 07:44 AM
Stupid move, IMHO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/obama-syrian-rebels_n_3438625.html

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 08:03 AM
CIA is already carrying out training operations. They're just advisers. I've heard that somewhere before.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 08:03 AM
Great Clinton calls him a wussy and he cracks. I'd rather drop bombs for them then do this. You know Rho then every once in awhile we say ooops did we drop that on Al Queda leadership? Our bad fog of war and all ya know? Giving them weapons is idiotic. If you want to finish assad finish him the same way you did Gaddaffi.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 08:05 AM
Big deal shoulder fired anti tank weapons wont turn the battle. Only air support helps win this thing.

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 08:07 AM
Once again, we're carrying out the same idiotic pattern as we have so many times in the past; Sticking our noses in somebody else's civil war. It's a no-win situation. We seem unable to learn from history.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 08:14 AM
I doubt this gets too messy. Fact is Assad is going to have to go at some point. The question is how long do we want it to take. I don't see how small arms and anti tank missiles will turn the battle but I guess it could. IMO you need some air strikes.

Remember Iraq was a cakewalk but Bush decided to try and play Rome and rebuild the place. As long as Obama doesn't care about the infrastructure or security of the govt he leaves behind he can finish assad rather easily I would think.

Its more he wanted to try and have a great 2nd term. I doubt all these scandals then another war is really great for that 2014 liberal turnout.

Requiem
06-14-2013, 08:23 AM
Once again, we're carrying out the same idiotic pattern as we have so many times in the past; Sticking our noses in somebody else's civil war. It's a no-win situation. We seem unable to learn from history.

I have no idea why this is the case, but you certainly are right. It is just depressing seeing this sort of thing. Outside a few instances of operations overseas, we haven't done anything substantial or successful since WWII -- at least in my opinion.

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 08:40 AM
I doubt this gets too messy. Fact is Assad is going to have to go at some point. The question is how long do we want it to take. I don't see how small arms and anti tank missiles will turn the battle but I guess it could. IMO you need some air strikes.

Remember Iraq was a cakewalk but Bush decided to try and play Rome and rebuild the place. As long as Obama doesn't care about the infrastructure or security of the govt he leaves behind he can finish assad rather easily I would think.

Its more he wanted to try and have a great 2nd term. I doubt all these scandals then another war is really great for that 2014 liberal turnout.

The American government seems unable to grasp the concept that some things are none of our business. George Washington warned them in his farewell address and they still can't figure it out.

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 08:55 AM
I have no idea why this is the case, but you certainly are right. It is just depressing seeing this sort of thing. Outside a few instances of operations overseas, we haven't done anything substantial or successful since WWII -- at least in my opinion.

It comes from the egotism and arrogance that gives some the belief that we can control all ends to our benefit. You have to have a certain amount of humility to accept the fact that this is just not true.

houghtam
06-14-2013, 09:01 AM
It comes from the egotism and arrogance that gives some the belief that we can control all ends to our benefit. You have to have a certain amount of humility to accept the fact that this is just not true.

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they will profit from it.

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 11:10 AM
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they will profit from it.

That, and the military/industrial complex seems to wag the American dog.

B-Large
06-14-2013, 11:42 AM
I read an article that one of the Rebel commanders carves out the organs of his enemies and eats them on YouTube to intimidate and horrify the other side. I know weve pissed on some Korans and made human pyramids with naked Iqaqis...

but eating another human heart, raw... something tells me to stay the **** out of that region and that mess....

Bronco Yoda
06-14-2013, 12:29 PM
I read an article that one of the Rebel commanders carves out the organs of his enemies and eats them on YouTube to intimidate and horrify the other side. I know weve pissed on some Korans and made human pyramids with naked Iqaqis...

but eating another human heart, raw... something tells me to stay the **** out of that region and that mess....

Hopefully he has the good sense to add some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 01:05 PM
What I also hope is that this is not just another cynical, geopolitical game where we give the rebels just enough guns and ammo to keep fighting, but not win, while Iran gets drawn in deeper and deeper. There are millions of innocent people in Syria who's lives are being destroyed. To draw it out for own purposes would be an act of unspeakable cruelty.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 02:10 PM
drawing it out is exactly what obama is doing Rho. It looks like American policy this time is let the islamists come to Syria to fight. If they are flocking to Syria then they can't go other places and attack us.

Funny though Roh because you can't help the civilians by staying out of it. If you do that they still get slaughtered. So which is it? do you care about civilians or not?

Rohirrim
06-14-2013, 02:20 PM
drawing it out is exactly what obama is doing Rho. It looks like American policy this time is let the islamists come to Syria to fight. If they are flocking to Syria then they can't go other places and attack us.

Funny though Roh because you can't help the civilians by staying out of it. If you do that they still get slaughtered. So which is it? do you care about civilians or not?

When it comes to a civil war that we are not a party to, any action is going to be the wrong action. We can help Turkey and the other surrounding nations with refugee relief.

elsid13
06-14-2013, 02:40 PM
Big deal shoulder fired anti tank weapons wont turn the battle. Only air support helps win this thing.

Playing COD doesn't make you expert on military actions.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 02:49 PM
Playing COD doesn't make you expert on military actions.

So what? I can read what military experts say and that's air power needed to break the Syrian govt advantage. Thats like saying playing fantasy football doesn't make you an expert on football so why bother making any comments about what you think Broncos need to do to win.

So which is it do we have to be experts to give our opinions now?

elsid13
06-14-2013, 03:15 PM
So what? I can read what military experts say and that's air power needed to break the Syrian govt advantage. Thats like saying playing fantasy football doesn't make you an expert on football so why bother making any comments about what you think Broncos need to do to win.

So which is it do we have to be experts to give our opinions now?

No you don't need to expert to express your opinion, but you should at least want to have informed statement before you throw stuff out. Air power by itself will not provide either tactical or operational advantage needed at this point to change current kinetic actions. Right now the various rebel groups are relying on civilian small arms, M40 recoilless rifles and self made Anti-armor munitions to counter Syrian government advantage of APV (Soviet/Russian BMP and their variants) in urban environments. Inability to operate in urban environments is hinder the rebel movement ability to turn the fight and lengthening the conflict.

So having Anti-armor munitions will grant them an immediate tactical advantage, something they won't get from air support because their is no C2 ability at this moment to coordinate actions. Plus because we have not begun air defense suppression actions, air support is at least 3 to 4 months off, while anti tank weapons could start having effects within a month.

Giving us breathing room to be begin building the required logistic and training support that going to be needed to support this movement.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 03:49 PM
meh all BS unless we use air power Assad won't fall. Sure anti tank weapons will help but it won't be enough. Assad will still have them outgunned with artilliary, helicopters, air strikes. Really unless Obama sets up a no fly zone I doubt Assad falls.

Now I do agree they would have to take out the air defenses etc first and it would take some time but that goes without saying.

Obama afraid to wade in and instead is doing the least amount he can without doing nothing.

Bill Clinton right he is a wuss.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 03:53 PM
Besides Elsid they are already getting small arms and rocket propelled grenades through Saudi Arabia, who gets them from us. So really Obamas announcement is all just grandstanding and means nothing on the ground in Syria. They already have shoulder fired weapons and small arms. They need a no fly zone to set up rebel bases in free from attack. They need air power called in to help them advance on key installations.

But..... like i said i don't think Obama wants them to win, at least not yet.

Smiling Assassin27
06-14-2013, 04:02 PM
Stupid move, IMHO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/obama-syrian-rebels_n_3438625.html



/end thread


Dudes in a race with W to the bottom. Somewhere Cheney is climaxing.

elsid13
06-14-2013, 04:04 PM
Besides Elsid they are already getting small arms and rocket propelled grenades through Saudi Arabia, who gets them from us. So really Obamas announcement is all just grandstanding and means nothing on the ground in Syria. They already have shoulder fired weapons and small arms. They need a no fly zone to set up rebel bases in free from attack. They need air power called in to help them advance on key installations.

But..... like i said i don't think Obama wants them to win, at least not yet.

U.S. officials are expected to meet with Gen. Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Supreme Military Council, over the next two days to discuss details of military assistance that Washington can provide. Rebel leaders said Idriss will urge the U.S. officials to offer a wider range of support.

“We welcome the decision, but it is a late step. And if they send small arms, how can small arms make a difference?” said Louay al-Mokdad, political and media coordinator for the Free Syria Army. “They should help us with real weapons, antitank and antiaircraft, and with armored vehicles, training and a no-fly zone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebels-say-they-need-heavy-weaponry-not-small-arms-from-us/2013/06/14/775615fe-d4e2-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 05:26 PM
The American government seems unable to grasp the concept that some things are none of our business. George Washington warned them in his farewell address and they still can't figure it out.

You seem to lack a grasp of what American policy has been since ww2. Everything is our business.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 05:27 PM
Exactly Elsid the want a no fly zone and without out this is not much. Thanks for proving my point.

mhgaffney
06-14-2013, 05:30 PM
You seem to lack a grasp of what American policy has been since ww2. Everything is our business.

You need to define the "our."

The CIA exists to look after the interests of the financial elite -- Wall Street investment bankers.

These bastards have had a long love affair with foreign wars. More of the same here.

WW III here we come.

MHG

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 05:35 PM
The reason ww3 won't happen is because the world power, the USA, the EU, The Soviets err Russian, the Chinese have no real reason to fight a war with each other. The superpowers have carved out power and figure its better this way then trying to fight another superpower for more.

It's more like a bunch of little wars that never really end more then 1 big one that involves many countries. The countries that would like to attack Israel just not powerful enough Gaff it would be suicide and over in months.

I just don't see a ww3. Maybe another Iraq but thats about it. But Obama won't put boots on the ground so.......

W*GS
06-14-2013, 06:02 PM
You seem to lack a grasp of what American policy has been since ww2. Everything is our business.

That's the problem. It shouldn't be and cannot be.

houghtam
06-14-2013, 06:44 PM
War is Peace

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 11:40 PM
That's the problem. It shouldn't be and cannot be.

Thats exactly how we played after ww1. But in the long run the staying out of things made even a worst war, world war 2. Since then America has been more hands on in the world.

i think w*gs honestly you will never see us with our head in the sand again. We are like the alpha dog who does not let the other dogs fight unless we say so.

I'm not saying it always works out, just letting you all know thats how it is for the rest of your lives as Americans. Get used to it.

Obama is probably as hands off, stay out of it, as any President you will get. Even Obama though can't stay out of it because the rest of the word looks to the USA. If we aren't there they will looks somewhere else and obviously our govt feels we don't want that.

houghtam
06-15-2013, 02:24 AM
Thats exactly how we played after ww1. But in the long run the staying out of things made even a worst war, world war 2. Since then America has been more hands on in the world.

i think w*gs honestly you will never see us with our head in the sand again. We are like the alpha dog who does not let the other dogs fight unless we say so.

I'm not saying it always works out, just letting you all know thats how it is for the rest of your lives as Americans. Get used to it.

Obama is probably as hands off, stay out of it, as any President you will get. Even Obama though can't stay out of it because the rest of the word looks to the USA. If we aren't there they will looks somewhere else and obviously our govt feels we don't want that.

Are you familiar with the concept of Perpetual War?

Like I said, silent complicity is a major theme of 1984. You ought to give it a read sometime. You might not be so okay with that concept if you actually understood what it meant, and what its implications were for both someone like you and your fellow citizens.

cutthemdown
06-15-2013, 12:11 PM
BS. Life goes on and it will never be fair for some people. Just how it is.

cutthemdown
06-15-2013, 12:12 PM
And yes i will take perpetual small wars over big ones anyday. They are just like earthquakes.

houghtam
06-15-2013, 12:30 PM
And yes i will take perpetual small wars over big ones anyday. They are just like earthquakes.

Small or big does not matter, it's continuity that is important. As long as the government is spending money and resources waging war, they can claim that money and those resources are not available to improve the quality of life for the general public.

As long as people like you are willing to fuel the military industrial complex with no questions asked, it will never end. What's worse is that it directly contributes to everyone's continued subservience and misery, including your own.

The fact that you not only accept but willingly trumpet the policy of Perpetual War sickens me. You are a puppet.

Ask yourself:

How many years of peace have we had since World War II?

What have we gained by these perpetual "small" wars?

What have you gained?

Arkie
06-15-2013, 01:03 PM
We've taken on a different role in the world since WWII. We waged a cold war with the other super power. Then we became the only super power and the world police. It's expensive to Americans, and it creates hatred towards us. The only ones who benefit are the military industrial complex.

DenverBrit
06-15-2013, 01:11 PM
We've taken on a different role in the world since WWII. We waged a cold war with the other super power. Then we became the only super power and the world police. It's expensive to Americans, and it creates hatred towards us. The only ones who benefit are the military industrial complex.

Well they have paid our elected for the privilege. :)

mhgaffney
06-15-2013, 01:59 PM
Are you familiar with the concept of Perpetual War?

Like I said, silent complicity is a major theme of 1984. You ought to give it a read sometime. You might not be so okay with that concept if you actually understood what it meant, and what its implications were for both someone like you and your fellow citizens.

Perpetual war became official government policy by the late 1960s --

check out the Report from Iron Mountain --

http://www.thelightgate.com/IRON%20MOUNTAIN%20BRIEFING%20PAPER.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtyEAttEthQ

mhgaffney
06-15-2013, 02:19 PM
Ron Paul blasts Obama for arming Syrian rebels


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35292.htm

broncocalijohn
06-16-2013, 04:40 PM
Will history repeat itself? How many criticize us for arming the rebels in Afghanistan during Reagan's tenure. While I think this is a worse situation, I think staying out of this (publically) is the best option.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 05:58 PM
Obama will do just enough to make it look like hes doing something.

broncocalijohn
06-17-2013, 10:36 PM
Obama will do just enough to make it look like hes doing something.

Sometimes doing nothing publically is doing something.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 01:59 AM
Obama is crap. What President just send arms without laying out his plan for the war and what our goals are? He has no friggin idea. His plan is to send some weapons and hopefully these next 3 1/2 yr go by really fast. Liberals should be puking their guts out that they voted for this turd. What a fraud and horrible leader he is. You can see it througout his whole administration. Inept and corupt, the worst combination.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 02:00 AM
Sometimes doing nothing publically is doing something.

BS he has had no plan since Egypt. he stinks.

broncocalijohn
06-18-2013, 11:44 AM
BS he has had no plan since Egypt. he stinks.

How do you take my post and think Obama is doing a great job on this situation? What I said is doing nothing publically is doing something. He is actually doing something publically and can back fire later.

mhgaffney
06-18-2013, 02:37 PM
BS he has had no plan since Egypt. he stinks.

BS. The plan is the same. It has not changed -- though the strategy may have evolved.

It's Wall Street calling the shots. Obama dances to their tune -- he is their puppet.

As Ron Paul indicated in the recent interview -- the financial elite need another war to distract the American people from the terrible economy. There is no recovery.

Don't believe it? I suggest you read Paul Craig Roberts' new book THE FAILURE OF LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.

It will shock the hell out of you. Oh I forgot. You don't read books.
MHG

houghtam
06-18-2013, 02:55 PM
How do you take my post and think Obama is doing a great job on this situation? What I said is doing nothing publically is doing something. He is actually doing something publically and can back fire later.

Cut lashes out at any post which does not spew his rhetoric line for line. Even when someone who generally agrees with him posts something he will attack them, not even realizing they are saying the same thing in a different way. He doesn't read, and he's a puppet.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 04:25 PM
So I disagree that his doing nothing is some sort of plan. Big deal. His plan is to not have a plan so he can say its not my fault. Then blame some BS chemical weapons red line to ship arms? I wasn't attacking broncocalijohn just expressing myself. Obama is horrible at everything but giving a decent speech once in awhile.

mhgaffney
06-18-2013, 06:05 PM
Report: Russia to Send Marines to Syria

By Vladimir Isachenkov
The Associated Press

June 18, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "AP" -- MOSCOW — Two Russian navy ships are completing preparations to sail to Syria with a unit of marines on a mission to protect Russian citizens and the nation's base there, a news report said Monday. The deployment appears to reflect Moscow's growing concern about Syrian President Bashar Assad's future.

The Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified Russian navy official as saying that the two amphibious landing vessels, Nikolai Filchenkov and Caesar Kunikov, will be heading shortly to the Syrian port of Tartus, but didn't give a precise date.

The official said the ships will carry an unspecified number of marines to protect Russians in Syria and evacuate some equipment from Tartus, if necessary.

Each ship is capable of carrying up to 300 marines and a dozen tanks, according to Russian media reports. That would make it the largest known Russian troop deployment to Syria, signaling that Moscow is becoming increasingly uneasy about Syria's slide toward civil war.

Interfax also quoted a deputy Russian air force chief as saying that Russia will give the necessary protection to its citizens in Syria.

"We must protect our citizens," Maj.-Gen. Vladimir Gradusov was quoted as saying. "We won't abandon the Russians and will evacuate them from the conflict zone, if necessary."

Asked whether the air force would provide air support for the navy squadron, Gradusov said they will act on orders.

The Defense Ministry had no immediate comment, and an official at the Black Sea fleet declined to comment.

Asked if the Pentagon is concerned about the plan, officials in Washington said it depends on the mission. They had no comment on the stated goal of protecting Russian citizens and the Russian military position there, something the U.S. would do in a foreign country if in a similar situation.

"I think we'd leave it to the Russian Ministry of Defense to speak to their naval movements and their national security decision-making process," said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, adding that it's not the business of the U.S. Defense Department to "endorse or disapprove of an internal mission like that."

What would greatly concern the U.S., he said, is if the Russian naval ships were taking weapons or sending people to support the Assad regime in its crackdown.

"The secretary of defense (Leon Panetta) remains concerned about any efforts by external countries or external organizations to supply lethal arms to the Syrian regime so that they can turn around and use those to kill their own people," Kirby said.

Tartus is Russia's only naval base outside the former Soviet Union, serving Russian navy ships on missions to the Mediterranean and hosting an unspecified number of military personnel.

Russian officials have said that other Russian navy ships that have called at Tartus this year also had marines on board, but it has remained unclear whether they rotated the troops at Tartus or simply protected the ships during their mission and returned home.

Russia also has an unspecified number of military advisers teaching Syrians how to use Russian weapons, which make up the bulk of Syrian arsenals.

Syria is Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East, and has been a major customer of Soviet and Russian weapons industries for the last four decades, acquiring billions of dollars worth of combat jets, helicopters, missiles, armored vehicles and other military gear.

Russia has shielded Assad's regime from international sanctions over its violent crackdown on protests. Moscow also has continued to provide Syria with arms, despite Western calls for a halt in supplies.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a harsh reprimand of Russia last week, when she said that Moscow "dramatically" escalated the crisis in Syria by sending attack helicopters there. The State Department acknowledged later the helicopters she accused Moscow of sending were actually refurbished ones already owned by the Assad regime, but Russia was clearly annoyed, and the spat further fueled tensions ahead of President Barack Obama's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Mexico on Monday.

Opposition groups say more than 14,000 people have been killed since the Syrian uprising began in March 2011 with mostly peaceful protests against Assad's autocratic regime. But a ferocious government crackdown led many to take up arms, and the conflict is now an armed insurgency.

Russia has criticized Assad for slow reforms and heavy-handed use of force, but has strongly opposed any sanctions or foreign interference in Syrian affairs.

Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report from Washington

mhgaffney
06-18-2013, 06:06 PM
Like I said -- WW III here we come.

mhgaffney
06-18-2013, 06:36 PM
Where's the proof that Assad used nerve gas? Has the US presented one iota of evidence? No. Two letters, "N" and "O" says it all. MHG

US Proxy War In Syria
Obama Is Making Us De Facto Allies Of Al-Qaida

By Patrick J. Buchanan

June 18, 2013 "Information Clearing House -- Barack Obama has just taken his first baby steps into a war in Syria that may define and destroy his presidency.

Thursday, while he was ringing in Gay Pride Month with LGBT revelers, a staffer, Ben Rhodes, informed the White House press that U.S. weapons will be going to the Syrian rebels.

For two years Obama has stayed out of this sectarian-civil war that has consumed 90,000 lives. Why is he going in now?

The White House claims it now has proof Bashar Assad used sarin gas to kill 100-150 people, thus crossing a "red line" Obama had set down as a "game changer." Defied, his credibility challenged, he had to do something.

Yet Assad's alleged use of sarin to justify U.S. intervention seems less like our reason for getting into this war than our excuse.

For the White House decided to intervene weeks ago, before the use of sarin was confirmed. And why would Assad have used only tiny traces? Where is the photographic evidence of the disfigured dead?

What proof have we the rebels did not fabricate the use of sarin or use it themselves to get the gullible Americans to fight their war?

Yet, why would President Obama, whose proud boast is that he will have extricated us from the Afghan and Iraq wars, as Dwight Eisenhower did from the Korean War, plunge us into a new war?

He has been under severe political and foreign pressure to do something after Assad and Hezbollah recaptured the strategic town of Qusair and began preparing to recapture Aleppo, the largest city.

Should Assad succeed, it would mean a decisive defeat for the rebels and their backers: the Turks, Saudis and Qataris. And it would mean a geostrategic victory for Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, who have proven themselves reliable allies.

To prevent this defeat and humiliation, we are now going to ship arms and ammunition to keep the rebels going and in control of enough territory to negotiate a peace that will remove Assad.

We are going to make this a fair fight.

What is wrong with this strategy? It is the policy of an amateur. It treats war like a game. It ignores the lessons of history. And, as it continues a bloodbath with no prospect of an end to it, it is immoral.

In every great civil war of modernity — the Russian civil war of 1919-1921, the Spanish civil war of 1936-1939, the Chinese civil war of 1945-49, one side triumphs and takes power.

The other loses and lives with the consequences — defeat, death, exile.

What is the likely reaction to our escalation from humanitarian aid to military aid? Counter-escalation. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are likely to rush in more weapons and troops to accelerate the progress of Assad's army before the American weapons arrive.

And if they raise and call, what does Obama do?

Already, a clamor is being heard from our clients in the Middle East and Congress to crater Syria's runways with cruise missiles, to send heavy weapons to the rebels, to destroy Assad's air force on the ground, to bomb his antiaircraft sites.

All of these are acts of war. Yet under the Constitution, Congress alone authorizes war.

When did Congress authorize Obama to take us to war in Syria? Where does our imperial president get his authority to draw red lines and attack countries that cross them?

Have we ceased to be a republic? Has Congress become a mere spectator to presidential decisions on war and peace?

As Vladimir Putin seems less the reluctant warrior, what do we do if Moscow answers the U.S. escalation by delivering on its contract to provide A-300 antiaircraft missiles to Damascus, which can cover half of Israel?

Obama has put us on the escalator to a war already spilling over Syria's borders into Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, a war that is now sundering the entire Middle East along Sunni and Shia lines.

He is making us de facto allies of the Al-Qaida-like al-Nusra Front, of Hamas and jihadists from all across the region, and of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi just severed ties to Syria and is demanding a "no-fly zone," which one imagines the United States, not the Egyptian air force, would have to enforce.

Our elites shed tears over the 90,000 dead in Syria. But what we are about to do will not stop the killing, but simply lengthen the duration of the war and increase the numbers of dead and wounded.

At the top of this escalator our country has begun to ascend is not just a proxy war with Iran in Syria, but a real war that would entail a disaster for the world economy.

If the ouster of Assad is what the Sunni powers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt demand, why not let them do it?

Anti-interventionists should demand a roll-call vote in Congress on whether Obama has the authority to take us into this Syrian war.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 12:24 AM
Lets face it Obamas burden of proof on WMD! will be less then Bush's.

Rohirrim
06-19-2013, 08:45 AM
What Buchanan seems to have missed is that Congress no longer functions and has turned power over to the executive branch by default. Sending a crucial decision of national importance to the floor of Congress is the same as dropping a file in a trash can; It means no decision, or a decision delivered so late as to be meaningless.

He is right about Obama's foolish decision to intervene. It's a civil war. It's none of our business. We should provide humanitarian relief to the refugees where possible and encourage the UN to broker some kind of mediation. If Israel wants to stick their noses into it, that's their business. Let Russia and Iran tangle themselves up in the Syrian brier patch. History shows again and again; Stick your nose in somebody else's civil war and it gets bit off.

broncocalijohn
06-19-2013, 10:31 AM
Like I said -- WW III here we come.

I swear I have heard you say this a few times...only a few times!

mhgaffney
06-19-2013, 01:42 PM
I swear I have heard you say this a few times...only a few times!

Yah well the level of complacency about the nuclear peril is such that it needs to be repeated.

Obama's new proposal to reduce nukes will be more than offset if we set off the Syrian tinder box.

Below is the current setting of the doomsday clock -- from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

MHG

mhgaffney
06-19-2013, 01:47 PM
More on the doomsday clock. As you will see -- we are in the most dangerous time -- except for the early 1980s and the 1940s-50s.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/doomsday-clock-2013-minutes-midnight-atomic_n_2498446.html

DenverBrit
06-19-2013, 01:51 PM
I swear I have heard you say this a few times...only a few times!

Every time there's a conflict somewhere, Gaffney runs over here with his little sign and no meds.

http://blog.modernista.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/theend.jpg

DenverBrit
06-19-2013, 01:53 PM
More on the doomsday clock. As you will see -- we are in the most dangerous time -- except for the early 1980s and the 1940s-50s.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/doomsday-clock-2013-minutes-midnight-atomic_n_2498446.html

.........and every other time some wack job announces the 'end is near' while filling his diaper. :loopy:

mhgaffney
06-19-2013, 05:49 PM
The atomic scientists -- not mhgaffney -- created the atomic clock to warn us about the nuclear peril.

Retards like Brit prefer denial. I prefer to be awake -- painful though it may sometimes be.

MHG

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 11:49 PM
The Atomic Clock is meaningless propaganda. Just because you understand how nukes work or how to build them doesn't mean you know when they will be used.

cutthemdown
06-19-2013, 11:50 PM
But once iran has them everything could change. Pakistan and N Korea probably the scariest right now but wait until Iran has some nukes Gaff. Then those Jews will really need to watch out huh?

mhgaffney
06-23-2013, 04:47 PM
But once iran has them everything could change. Pakistan and N Korea probably the scariest right now but wait until Iran has some nukes Gaff. Then those Jews will really need to watch out huh?

In case you didn't notice, we survived the Cold War despite the fact that the US and USSR pointed thousands of ICBMs at one another. Neither side blinked.

The present situation in the Mideast is very different. In the first place there is no evidence Iran is developing nukes. Not a shred -- just disinfo spread by Israel.

Even if Iran did get them -- why would this change anything? It would not.

No, the issue -- in a nutshell -- is that Israel will not tolerate ay state in the region to possess a deterrent -- whether conventional or nuclear.

Iran now has a conventional deterrent -- medium range missiles that can accurately target Israel. This Israel cannot abide -- and this is what the broooha is all about. It's not even about nukes.

MHG

mhgaffney
06-23-2013, 04:48 PM
Russian Advanced Weapons for Syria: Report

By Dam-Press. (Translated from the Arabic)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35386.htm

W*GS
06-23-2013, 04:58 PM
In the first place there is no evidence Iran is developing nukes. Not a shred -- just disinfo spread by Israel.

It's always them damned Jews, isn't it?

Amazing how the Mossad has infiltrated the highest levels of the Iranian government and puppeteered them into saying and doing exactly what one would expect from Iran developing nukes.

W*GS
06-23-2013, 04:59 PM
Many of these over Israel would give gaffe huge pleasure - probably an orgasm:

http://www.wallpaperswala.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/nuclear_mushroom_cloud.jpeg

broncocalijohn
06-23-2013, 05:16 PM
It is pretty, though.

mhgaffney
06-23-2013, 05:38 PM
It's always them damned Jews, isn't it?

Amazing how the Mossad has infiltrated the highest levels of the Iranian government and puppeteered them into saying and doing exactly what one would expect from Iran developing nukes.

Mr disinfo at it again.

Gotta give W*gs credit. He does work hard at it.

But where's the beef? As in evidence? There is none. MHG

W*GS
06-23-2013, 06:00 PM
But where's the beef? As in evidence? There is none. MHG

Iran’s nuclear programme
Breakout beckons

Neither Iran’s election, nor sanctions nor military threats are likely to divert it from the path it is on to getting nuclear weapons
Jun 22nd 2013 | From the print edition

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130622_FBP001_0.jpg

THE resounding victory of Hassan Rohani, the most moderate and outward-looking of the presidential candidates deemed fit to contest the election by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has raised hopes for a nuclear deal between Iran and the international community. As the Islamic Republic’s nuclear negotiator for nearly two years from October 2003, he showed a degree of flexibility that was depressingly absent in the most recent talks between Iran and the UN Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany (P5+1).

Mr Rohani seems pragmatic enough to know that Iran needs relief from sanctions to revive its economy, and that a more constructive negotiating stance on the nuclear programme will be needed to get that. Nevertheless, the change in Iran’s top civilian office is unlikely to bring an end to the interminable Iranian nuclear crisis.

Even if Mr Rohani wanted to do the kind of deal that would be acceptable to the West (and there is nothing in his past to suggest that he might), the guiding hand behind Iran’s nuclear policy will remain that of the supreme leader, whose introspective, suspicious view of the world outside Iran has not changed. The die is already cast: nothing is likely to stop Iran getting the bomb if and when it decides it wants one.

The last set of talks between the P5+1 and Iran, the fifth of the current round of negotiations, were in early April and ended on a downbeat note. They followed a proposal in February to allow a modest easing of sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s uranium-enrichment programme and more comprehensive inspections by the IAEA. Intended as a prelude to a more far-reaching deal, the offer represented a slight softening of the six powers’ position, by allowing Iran to keep a small amount of uranium enriched to 20% (for use in a reactor to make medical isotopes) and calling only for the suspension of enrichment at Fordow, a plant buried deep within a mountain, rather than its closure.

Iran’s negotiator, Saeed Jalili (an unsuccessful presidential candidate close to Mr Khamenei), replied that he wanted a suspension of all sanctions in exchange for only a temporary halt to 20% uranium enrichment, an impossible demand.

Mr Rohani’s election means the next round of negotiations will be conducted in a better atmosphere. But to what end? The answer is that the process serves a purpose for everybody. For Iran, the continuation of talks is a means of getting some easing of sanctions in exchange for concessions that will have little impact on its nuclear programme. For America and its allies, the absence of progress up to now has kept the international community lined up behind sanctions. Both sides, preferring to avoid a military confrontation, have an interest in demonstrating that the diplomatic path to a solution has not yet reached a dead-end.

Yet the inconvenient truth is that while the talks seem destined to continue, Iran is close to what is known as “critical capability”—the point at which it could make a dash to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one or more bombs before the IAEA or Western intelligence agencies would even know it had done so. Despite the severe economic pain that the tightening of sanctions has inflicted on Iran’s people and their evident desire for change, Iran’s strategic calculus has not shifted. The nuclear programme is worth almost any sacrifice because it guarantees the regime’s survival against external threats, as America’s differing policies towards Libya and North Korea illustrate.

Speeding up
How close is Iran to critical capability? British and American intelligence sources think it is about a year away from having enough fissile material to make a bomb and further still from mastering the technologies to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit onto one of its Shabab-3 ballistic missiles and carry out the tests needed to be confident that the system works.

But two of the most respected independent analysts—David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security and Greg Jones, a RAND Corporation researcher who writes on Iran for the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre (NPEC)—believe that time is running out more quickly. Mr Albright thinks that by mid-2014 Iran will be able from a standing start to produce enough fissile material for a single bomb in one or two weeks. Mr Jones reckons that later this year Iran will be able to produce within about ten weeks enough weapons-grade uranium for a couple of nuclear weapons.

If Iran has a small clandestine enrichment facility designed to enrich uranium from 20% to 90% (highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, or HEU) it could quite soon be able to manufacture enough material for five bombs in about 14 weeks using a new generation of advanced centrifuges it has already begun to install in its main enrichment site at Natanz. Mr Jones, in a recent report for NPEC, says that although a secret facility would put Iran in breach of IAEA safeguards “the time needed for Iran to produce HEU by this method is becoming so short as to make it doubtful that any effective action could be taken before Iran obtained a nuclear weapon.”

For both Mr Albright and Mr Jones, what matters most is the relentless pace at which Iran is adding to its enrichment capabilities and thus the speed at which it can produce the fissile material needed for an implosion device, the most common form of nuclear bomb. As Mr Albright puts it, the critical component for “a fissile-material dash” is the quantity and quality of Iran’s centrifuges. Despite wide-ranging attempts by the West and Israel to delay or sabotage the nuclear programme, Iran has installed around 9,000 new centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow in less than two years, more than doubling its previous enrichment capacity. Reflecting this surge in capacity, Iran’s stockpile of 3.5% or low-enriched uranium has gone from about 2,500kg to around 4,300kg in the same period. In March, Iran announced that it was also building 3,000 of the new, more advanced centrifuges (known as the IR-2m) that are said to be up to five times more efficient than the older IR-1 design. Nearly 700 of the new centrifuges have already been installed. Iran is also making progress with its heavy-water reactor at Arak. Capable of producing plutonium, it could provide an alternative route to a bomb at the end of next year.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130622_FBM977.png

Paradoxically, these developments are proceeding without Iran appearing to risk crossing either the red line announced by Barack Obama or the most recent limit set by Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. Both men have threatened that the consequence of Iran crossing their respective lines would be attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but neither line has been drawn clearly. In Israel’s case, the ultimatum set by Mr Netanyahu in September last year was that Iran must be prevented from having enough 20% or medium-enriched uranium (MEU) to allow it to produce the 20 or so kg of HEU required for a nuclear weapon. But how much is that?

More than enough for a bomb
Mr Netanyahu has since suggested that if Iran had 250kg of MEU it would have crossed his red line. But that seems a very high figure for a single nuclear device (see chart). He may have been referring to MEU in the form of uranium hexafluoride that Iran’s enrichment process produces rather than the amount of 20% enriched uranium itself. That is because 250kg of hexafluoride would produce about 165kg of MEU, which is about right for one bomb. Mr Jones reckons the amount of MEU needed for a single bomb could be between 94kg and 210kg depending on how the enrichment to HEU is carried out. Since Iran started producing MEU just over three years ago it has produced 219kg of 20% enriched uranium, of which over 40% has been converted to uranium oxide, some of which has been made into fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130622_FBM991.png

However, that still leaves a 123kg stockpile of MEU, enough for a bomb if Mr Jones is right and therefore already well across Mr Netanyahu’s red line. In the last quarter Iran converted 67% of its MEU production into oxide, but still increased the stockpile by 10kg. Even though Iran is managing its MEU stockpile carefully to keep the negotiations going and preserve ambiguity, on any reckoning it is likely to be well over the line set by Israel before the end of this year. Does that suggest that Israel will carry out a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities some time in the next six months? Probably not. Israeli red lines have come and gone in the past.

A while ago, Israel wanted it to be thought that Iran would face attack if it gained the capability to build a nuclear weapon. That point was probably passed some years ago. Making a bomb depends on Iran’s ability to convert HEU into a metal sphere for the weapon’s core, to make a reliable detonator and then to create a warhead small enough to put on a ballistic missile, a process known as “weaponisation”. Mastery of the techniques required is not beyond Iran’s engineering capacity.

Western intelligence agencies used to reckon that Iran had suspended work on weaponisation in 2004. But after the IAEA published a report in November 2011, since when Iran has refused to allow the agency’s inspectors into the Parchin military research complex facility, that assumption has been challenged. In December 2011 Mr Jones estimated that Iran could produce an implosion-type device within two to six months, thanks in part to the help it is thought to have received from Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear weapons designer. North Korea is also believed to have given substantial technical help.

Israel subsequently came up with another red line that its then-defence minister, Ehud Barak, called the “zone of immunity”. This referred to the moment when Iran had enough centrifuges in the Fordow facility, which is impregnable to Israeli conventional weapons, to continue enrichment even after an attack. That line was probably crossed a year or more ago.

As Iran’s nuclear programme has advanced, Israel has become less confident of its ability, acting alone, to do more than temporary damage to it. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution says that Israel might have attacked three or four years ago, but that it is less likely to do so now. Until last year Mr Netanyahu appeared to hope that if Israel struck first, America would be forced, whatever its initial reservations, to step in and use its greater military resources to finish the job. After being warned unmistakably by Mr Obama that he could not count on any such thing and that America would not be “complicit” in such an attack, Mr Netanyahu came perilously close to trying to influence the presidential election in favour of his friend, the more hawkish Mitt Romney.

Clear enough?
Since then Israel’s prime minister has concentrated on keeping up the pressure on Mr Obama to honour his commitments on Iran. When the president visited Israel in March, both leaders said they shared a “common assessment” of how close Iran was to getting a bomb and were equally determined to prevent it from doing so. Mr Netanyahu said his red line might be crossed before Mr Obama’s and Mr Obama ceded Israel’s right to defend itself as it saw fit. But the reality is that Israel will contemplate a unilateral strike on Iran only if it comes to believe that America has betrayed it by ruling one out. Even then, suggests Mr O’Hanlon, the intention might be to signal to Tehran that Israel “had not gone soft” rather than out of any conviction that it could delay Iran’s progress to a bomb by more than a year or two.

What could prompt Mr Obama to order an attack? In March last year he said that “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” and that a “military effort” might be required to divert it from that course. The former defence secretary, Leon Panetta, went further, saying that if America received intelligence that Iran was “proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon” or that a decision had been taken to that end, America would “take the necessary action to stop [it]”. Moreover, the Obama administration has repeatedly claimed that it would know when such a decision had been taken and would have time to respond. So, not much ambiguity there, then? Well, actually, quite a lot.

Mr Obama’s red line rests on at least three questionable assumptions. The first is that the evidence that Iran has taken the political decision to become a nuclear weapons state will be sufficiently compelling to allow for no other interpretation. The second is that there will be a significant interval between such evidence presenting itself and Iran actually having a weapon that it might be willing to use to deter an attack. The third is that a strike or series of strikes bringing America’s military might to bear on Iran’s nuclear facilities would achieve its aims.

Mr O’Hanlon believes that Mr Obama is “locked in” to taking military action if Iran signals its intentions, for example by renouncing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and throwing out the IAEA’s inspectors. Kenneth Pollack, of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at Brookings and author of “Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy” (to be published in September), is less convinced that the “US will get a clean shot” of that kind. If Iran left the NPT, it would say it was doing so because it regards the agency’s inspectors as spies, not because it wants a nuclear weapon. Moreover, he believes that Mr Obama will demand a very high standard of proof following the intelligence debacle over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

The idea that there will be plenty of time between Iran making the decision to build nuclear weapons and actually getting them is a comforting conceit that Western intelligence agencies have clung to. The implication is that there will be opportunities for careful alliance-building and diplomatic ultimatums before any strike has to take place. But with Iran approaching critical capability that may not be true. As time goes on, the period that Iran needs to produce not one or two but several devices undetected shrinks, increasing the chances of Iran being treated in much the same way as other aspirant nuclear states that have crossed the threshold, such as Pakistan and North Korea.

The third questionable assumption is that air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities would achieve their objective. If Iran, after leaving the NPT, had stockpiled sufficient MEU for several bombs and hidden it well, the chances of finding and destroying it would be small. It could decide to absorb an attack and then, using a still largely intact Fordow or a clandestine plant, move quickly to fissile material production.

No good options
Mr Obama may well conclude that if his military planners cannot be confident of delaying Iran’s progress to nuclear weapons for a long time—at least five to ten years—or changing Iranian behaviour, it is not worth trying. Just as troubling, if bombing was tried and it failed, Mr Pollack thinks Mr Obama would have to follow up with a full-scale invasion. “No American president would or could say, we gave it our best shot, but we can’t finish the job,” he says. Mr Jones has similar fears. He says that such is the scale of the country’s centrifuge enrichment programme that a prolonged bombing campaign would be required to halt it and that “would run a serious risk of turning into a large-scale war with Iran”. America could hammer Iran, but having brought American forces home from Iraq and Afghanistan this is the last thing that Mr Obama wants for his war-weary, financially drained country.

Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC says that one choice is containment and the other military strikes—followed by containment. Given that sanctions and diplomacy are unlikely to alter Iran’s course and that force will not achieve a lasting solution, he thinks America and its allies must start thinking through what containment and deterrence of a nuclear Iran will require.

What nobody knows, quite possibly not even the supreme leader himself, is when and how Iran will step across the nuclear threshold. Pakistan waited nearly 12 years between acquiring enough fissile material for a bomb in 1986 and carrying out a succession of nuclear tests in 1998. Iran might be similarly patient, a course Mr Rohani may advocate. On the other hand, if he fails to win softer sanctions Iran could try to bring things to a head more quickly. What is increasingly hard to believe is that it can be dissuaded or prevented from getting the bomb by force. The challenge for Western policymakers may be less about stopping Iran than managing the consequences of it having a nuclear weapon, which include the unravelling of the entire non-proliferation system.

mhgaffney
06-23-2013, 06:13 PM
Notice, Mr disinfo gives no link.

We are asked to trust in the beneficence and integrity of guess who?
MHG

mhgaffney
06-23-2013, 06:14 PM
Are you kidding me?

W*GS
06-23-2013, 06:25 PM
Notice, Mr disinfo gives no link.

We are asked to trust in the beneficence and integrity of guess who?
MHG

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21579815-neither-irans-election-nor-sanctions-nor-military-threats-are-likely-divert-it-path

Just 'fess up and admit that you hate the Jews and all else follows from that.

W*GS
06-23-2013, 06:26 PM
Are you kidding me?

Yes, you just got your ass handed to you in most spectacular style.

DenverBrit
06-23-2013, 08:52 PM
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21579815-neither-irans-election-nor-sanctions-nor-military-threats-are-likely-divert-it-path

Just 'fess up and admit that you hate the Jews and all else follows from that.

If it didn't come from www.Disinformationcraphouse.com, Gaffney won't know how to respond.

mhgaffney
06-24-2013, 06:59 PM
Yes, you just got your ass handed to you in most spectacular style.

You are a Zionist stooge, W*gs. You have no idea what you are talking about.

All of the US intelligence agencies agree that Iran has not made a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Period.

Iran halted work on a bomb in 2003.

There is no Iranian nuclear threat to Israel -- or anyone else.MHG

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

By JAMES RISEN and MARK MAZZETTI

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

WASHINGTON [/B]— Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

At the center of the debate is the murky question of the ultimate ambitions of the leaders in Tehran. There is no dispute among American, Israeli and European intelligence officials that Iran has been enriching nuclear fuel and developing some necessary infrastructure to become a nuclear power. But the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to resume a parallel program to design a nuclear warhead — a program they believe was essentially halted in 2003 and which would be necessary for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

mhgaffney
06-24-2013, 07:02 PM
Iran's uranium enrichment is to provide low enriched fuel for several reactors -- not weapons grade material.

With the IAEA controls in place- - using new technology -- sensors -- cheating is impossible.

MHG

W*GS
06-25-2013, 07:15 AM
You are a Zionist stooge, W*gs.

You're a Nazi misanthrope who would do best just to shut the **** up.

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 08:06 AM
Iran doesn't need nuclear power do they? They will run out of water before oil to burn.

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 08:07 AM
Sanctions are just our way of telling Iran, hey we haven't forgot about you. Just because we haven't bombed you doesn't mean you aren't important to us.

mhgaffney
06-25-2013, 09:58 AM
Sanctions are just our way of telling Iran, hey we haven't forgot about you. Just because we haven't bombed you doesn't mean you aren't important to us.

The sanctions are belligerent - an act of war. If another nation did that to us we'd probably send in the marines -- or drones -- or maybe even nuke them.

mhgaffney
06-25-2013, 05:11 PM
Here is a great forum on Iran -- by scholars who know of what they speak.

Fast forward to 19:00 to skip the intros:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Jw96vdC4U

mhgaffney
06-25-2013, 05:37 PM
Here is a great MIT forum on Iran -- by scholars who know of what they speak.

Fast forward to 19:00 to skip the intros:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Jw96vdC4U

MUST WATCH -- this forum will change the way you think about the world.

W*GS
06-25-2013, 05:46 PM
MUST WATCH -- this forum will change the way you think about the world.

We think about the world - you **** on it.

mhgaffney
06-26-2013, 06:15 PM
Time to Rethink Iran...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTpLUSyUXcQ

mhgaffney
07-11-2013, 05:48 PM
A Russian team visited the site of the alleged Sarin attack by Syrian forces -- and after analysis concluded the attack was by the rebels -- not Assad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ysju7W6r_E

mhgaffney
07-11-2013, 05:58 PM
Nobel Peace Prize winner describes her experience in Syria...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35501.htm

mhgaffney
07-21-2013, 05:47 PM
It appears that Obama's decision to send arms came too late to matter. Thank heaven. This will slow the drift to another bigger Mideast war. MHG



NATO: Assad Prevailing in Syria

Special to WorldTribune.com

July 21, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "WT" - LONDON — NATO has determined that President Bashar Assad ended any short- or mid-term threat from the Sunni revolt in Syria.

Officials said NATO, in consultation with Western intelligence agencies, assessed that the Sunni rebel campaign against Assad failed over the last three months.

The officials said Assad’s military, backed by Iran and Russia, would capture major rebel strongholds with the exception of northern Syria by the end of 2013.

“Currently, the tide seems to have shifted in his [Assad] favor,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18.

Officials said the assessment led to a decision by several leading NATO countries to halt lethal weapons shipments to the Sunni rebels. They cited Britain, France and the United States.

“The rebel campaign has deteriorated dramatically since April and now it’s not clear who is fighting Assad or who is just getting a paycheck,” an official said.

The NATO assessment asserted that most of the Syrians involved in the revolt — including those in the Free Syrian Army — were no longer fighting the Assad regime. Instead, the bulk of combat has been assumed by foreign fighters, most of them affiliated with Al Qaida.

“They [Syrian rebels] are frustrated and angry at the world for not stepping in and helping,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said during a tour of a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan. “I explained to them I don’t think it’s as cut and dry and as simple as some of them look at it.”

In mid-July, both Britain and France signaled their opposition to any weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels. Officials said the two countries, which until June were the most supportive of arming the opposition, determined that any major weapons shipments could end up with Al Qaida militias.

“There are certain conditions that need to be met before eventually sending weapons,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.

“For now France has not modified its position. We have the ability to do it, but we haven’t delivered any lethal weapons.”

W*GS
07-21-2013, 06:57 PM
NATO: Assad Prevailing in Syria

Gives gaffe a chub.

Meck77
08-26-2013, 12:58 PM
Well here we go. John Kerry on TV lobbying for an attack on Syria. Israel truly has America by the balls.

Kerry "Nothing is more serious in the world".

I feel for the people of Syria but what about the hungry in America? Millions without work? An American border that is virtually unprotected?

White House now saying they are ready to strike at any moment. WTF.

Rohirrim
08-26-2013, 01:07 PM
Well here we go. John Kerry on TV lobbying for an attack on Syria. Israel truly has America by the balls.

Kerry "Nothing is more serious in the world".

I feel for the people of Syria but what about the hungry in America? Millions without work? An American border that is virtually unprotected?

White House now saying they are ready to strike at any moment. WTF.

Latest poll: 60% of the American people are opposed to the U.S. getting involved in Syria.

Guess what?


Don't mean ****.

Rigs11
08-26-2013, 01:41 PM
Well here we go. John Kerry on TV lobbying for an attack on Syria. Israel truly has America by the balls.

Kerry "Nothing is more serious in the world".

I feel for the people of Syria but what about the hungry in America? Millions without work? An American border that is virtually unprotected?

White House now saying they are ready to strike at any moment. WTF.

Dude quit being a socialist.:rofl:

Rigs11
08-26-2013, 01:50 PM
If obama decides to go in will the righties support him? good one huh?:rofl:

Meck77
08-26-2013, 01:53 PM
We may just find out who Obama is working for real soon. We are piling on trillions upon trillions in debt and I've stated several times. I think the Fed is full of **** that they can "taper" the money printing. All things are pointing to it accelerating if nothing else. The market is agreeing with me. Another war that doesn't protect the interests of the American people that we can't afford should be interesting. The backlash after the attack will certainly be interesting.

*Edit*

You can shove the left/righty stuff up your ass. I could care less about politics. We're on the verge of risking more American lives and billions for Israel. For what?

Oh guess what else. We are about to hit our debt limit again. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100968088 Perfect time to drop more billions blowing people up.

Yup...Let's go toe to toe with Iran while we are at it. Russia. Bring it!

Rigs11
08-26-2013, 02:21 PM
We may just find out who Obama is working for real soon. We are piling on trillions upon trillions in debt and I've stated several times. I think the Fed is full of **** that they can "taper" the money printing. All things are pointing to it accelerating if nothing else. The market is agreeing with me. Another war that doesn't protect the interests of the American people that we can't afford should be interesting. The backlash after the attack will certainly be interesting.

*Edit*

You can shove the left/righty stuff up your ass. I could care less about politics. We're on the verge of risking more American lives and billions for Israel. For what?

Oh guess what else. We are about to hit our debt limit again. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100968088 Perfect time to drop more billions blowing people up.

Yup...Let's go toe to toe with Iran while we are at it. Russia. Bring it!

take it easy internet commando. i agree with you on israel.we should spend money on our own. yet that is called socialism by the righties around here.

Meck77
08-26-2013, 02:27 PM
take it easy internet commando. i agree with you on israel.we should spend money on our own. yet that is called socialism by the righties around here.

My bad. It just blows me away that we are potentially entangling ourselves into another war. My best friend has been in and out of Afghanistan and places he can't even tell me about and there is a reason he moved his family as far away from DC as possible. It's not if it's when the east coast gets hit again with some retaliation.

mhgaffney
08-26-2013, 02:52 PM
I just learned about this -- very disturbing news. The UN has not even confirmed that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack -- and they're already preparing to attack.

This is insanity.

The early reports indicate that the rebels staged a false flag chemical attack -- to provoke intervention by the West.

ButI have yet to hear even one radio report deviate from the "Assad did it" propaganda. G-d help us if this blows up. MHG


Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

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-Assad’s forces against his own people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

houghtam
08-26-2013, 03:01 PM
My bad. It just blows me away that we are potentially entangling ourselves into another war. My best friend has been in and out of Afghanistan and places he can't even tell me about and there is a reason he moved his family as far away from DC as possible. It's not if it's when the east coast gets hit again with some retaliation.

It's true. "They" don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our foreign policy, our arrogance, and our perpetual military presence everywhere around the globe.

It's high time we get rid of the military industrial complex, but good luck convincing most conservatives and any "liberal" in a district affected by military spending cuts.

I don't even care if the money is flushed down a toilet, it's a better use for it than propping up a multibillion dollar industry that does us more harm than good. We can protect ourselves and our interests with a streamlined military at a quarter of what we're paying now, and as I've said before, we can return the majority of the military back to the states with the National Guard in each state. With the money the federal government saves on wasteful spending, they can reinvest in infrastructure, which is arguably more important for war than the actual troops.

It will take some creative thinking and thoughtful engineering, but it can be done. The first step is voting out anyone who wants to raise the military budget. The second is voting out anyone who doesn't want to lower it.

Rohirrim
08-26-2013, 03:17 PM
Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Madison, 1789)

elsid13
08-26-2013, 03:35 PM
So we should allow use of chemical weapon on civilians to go unopposed? Taking a stand again evil act is never wrong.

mhgaffney
08-26-2013, 03:47 PM
So we should allow use of chemical weapon on civilians to go unopposed? Taking a stand again evil act is never wrong.

You should be asking who staged the attack?

Assad was winning the war. Why would he risk everything by using them -- knowing this would be a red line - that might trigger western intervention?

Much more likely that the rebels staged the attack.
MHG

elsid13
08-26-2013, 04:40 PM
You should be asking who staged the attack?

Assad was winning the war. Why would he risk everything by using them -- knowing this would be a red line - that might trigger western intervention?

Much more likely that the rebels staged the attack.
MHG

This act was done by the Syrian Regime, no one else. Assad is fulling bold because the three previous chemical attacks caused no western response (because of the lack of medical evidence) and the Russians assuring him they would block any UN security council actions.

mhgaffney
08-26-2013, 04:56 PM
This act was done by the Syrian Regime, no one else. Assad is fulling bold because the three previous chemical attacks caused no western response (because of the lack of medical evidence) and the Russians assuring him they would block any UN security council actions.

You sound like FOX News.

Where is the evidence Assad did it? There is none.

So - you would start WW III on a supposition?

Nor has it been shown that Assad was responsible for the other attacks - - assuming they actually took place, which is not certain.

The Russians claim to have intel that the missiles launched from turf owned by the rebels.

DenverBrit
08-26-2013, 05:17 PM
You sound like FOX News.

Where is the evidence Assad did it? There is none.

So - you would start WW III on a supposition?

Nor has it been shown that Assad was responsible for the other attacks - - assuming they actually took place, which is not certain.

The Russians claim to have intel that the missiles launched from turf owned by the rebels.

We can always trust the Russians.

Mecklomaniac
08-26-2013, 08:32 PM
We can always trust the Russians.


I thought we were all good now that Hillary gave the Russians a <s> Reset </s> Overcharged button.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7930047.stm

W*GS
08-27-2013, 02:20 AM
I just wonder why gaffe isn't high up in Assad's government, helping Bashir counterbalance the threat from Israel.

Put your money where your mouth is, gaffe - fight for your beliefs. Go join the Syrian regime.

Rohirrim
08-27-2013, 07:46 AM
The U.S. sanctioned Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-gave-iraq-intel-ignored-chemical-attacks_n_3817868.html

And if they didn't "sanction" it, they sure as hell looked the other way.

Meck77
08-27-2013, 09:41 AM
So we should allow use of chemical weapon on civilians to go unopposed? Taking a stand again evil act is never wrong.

You really think our government cares Syria used chemical weapons on it's own people or do you suppose it's Israel who feels threatened?

If Israel is threatened they have the right to defend themselves. Look what they did to Lebanon not long ago. Why should the US do Israel's dirty work?

Why should YOUR brother, YOUR tax dollars be spent and not Israel's? Hell we cut them billion dollar checks anyways!

Just realized Israel bombed Lebanon 4 days ago. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/201382343319546176.html That region is one insane Holy War that I feel we should not be apart of. Let them duke it out.

DenverBrit
08-27-2013, 09:50 AM
The Arab League need to be the 'organization' acting to remove Assad, he's in their 'hood' and killing fellow Arabs.

We are long past due in demanding that they 'police' their own, rather than looking to us to do their dirty work.

Arab League blames Syria's Assad for chemical attack
CAIRO | Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:15am EDT
(Reuters) - The Arab League said on Tuesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible for a chemical attack near Damascus, as speculation mounted that the United States was preparing a military strike.

Diplomatic sources said the statement, issued after a meeting of Arab League delegates in Cairo, was pushed through with strong backing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

broncocalijohn
08-27-2013, 10:33 AM
If obama decides to go in will the righties support him? good one huh?:rofl:

I doubt it. We are "warred out". I think anything connected to 9/11 is one thing but these conflicts on top of our own issues in Afghanistan is tolling. I am actually surprised 40% support USA getting involved but I guess those are the hardcore Obama supporters and Militia type guys.

Good one, huh?

mhgaffney
08-27-2013, 04:38 PM
The UN inspectors evidently only have a mandate to determine "IF" chemical weapons were used -- not who used them. The fix is in.

The situation is reminiscent of when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 on the eve of a US bombing campaign - Desert Fox. Then Saddam was blamed.

It is also reminiscent of Bush's 2003 attack on Iraq -- the war began BEFORE the inspectors had finished their work. Clearly Bush did not want to hear the results. Only later -- AFTER the war -- we learned there were no WMD.

Even so, in my 65 years I have never seen such a rush to war -- as now.

WW III here we come. MHG



Reuters: US to Strike Syria Before UN Evidence Collected

And the real meaning of "limited strikes"

By Tony Cartalucci

August 27, 2013 "Information Clearing House - The US has accused the Syrian government of delaying UN inspectors from accessing the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But now, according to Reuters, the US appears to be preparing to strike Syria militarily before the UN's now ongoing investigation is concluded and evidence revealed to either support or conflict with the West's so far baseless allegations.

Reuters' article, "Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition: sources," states that:

Western powers told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.

"The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva," one of the sources who was at the meeting on Monday told Reuters.

Clearly, such a strike would render moot both the UN inspection team's investigation and any evidence they may find. While the US has accused the Syrian government of obstructing an investigation that is indeed already being carried out, the impending US attack would indefinitely end the UN's efforts. If, as the US reasons, obstructing the UN's investigation implicates guilt, then the US has just made itself the prime suspect of what is increasingly appearing to be a staged provocation to salvage a proxy war the US and its allies have all but lost.

What "Limited Strikes" Really Means

Before the US and its allies mire the world in another unprovoked military adventure at the cost of thousands, perhaps even millions of lives, the wider strategy behind what the US is calling "limited strikes" should be fully understood.


Much of the West's proxy war against Syria has been drawn from plans laid by the Brookings Institution versus Iran in a 2009 document titled, "Which Path to Persia?" The report stated:


"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.

Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran (and now Syria) realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. An article recently published in Slate indicates that the approval rating of a proposed assault on Syria is only 9% - making the potential war the most unpopular conflict in American history.

Brookings would continue throughout their 2009 report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran's economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself.

In Syria, each and every one of these options have also been tried, and have subsequently failed. It was revealed as far back as 2007 that the US was planning on arming and funding terrorists to overthrow the government of Syria, as reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?"

Starting in 2011, it has become increasing clear that the so-called "freedom fighters" in Syria are in fact terrorists drawn directly from the ranks of Al Qaeda, armed, funded, and otherwise supported by NATO just as was described in Hersh's 2007 report.

Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian and now Syrian targets, Brookings indicated there was still the strong possibility Iran (and now Syria) would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

"It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not."
The report continues:

"However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 95.

Already, both Turkey's current government and its regional partner Israel have attacked Syria on numerous occasions with Syria each time exhibiting infinite restraint.

It is then revealed that the term "limited strikes" is a euphemism for "attempted provocations" to intentionally initiate a wider conflict. While the Brookings document refers to Iran, it is clear that if the West is to topple the Syrian government now with its proxy forces already spent, it will have to do so itself with a military campaign exceeding the currently planned "limited strikes." Additionally, realizing there is virtually no support for a war with either Syria or Iran, special interests across the West are attempting to tangle the world in this lethal conflict by disingenuously proposing, at first, something relatively benign they believe they can get away with even without popular support.

Western special interests hope that a Syrian response and the death of American and/or Israeli troops - perhaps the sinking of a US ship or the loss of multiple US aircraft - will turn the 9% approval rating for their premeditated assault on Syria into an overwhelming baying for blood across the West's populations. Failing to elicit a response from Syria, this may be accomplished with false flag attacks, as was the case in the Gulf of Tonkin incident at the onset of the Vietnam War.

Understanding that the intentional endangerment and death of US troops and their allied counterparts is part of initiating an otherwise impossible wider war, inoculates much of an already war-weary Western population from the "rally around the flag" effect Western special interests are depending on to re-energize their failed Middle East adventure.

This article was originally published at Land Destroyer

mhgaffney
08-27-2013, 04:40 PM
The coming attack on Syria is really just the prelude to war with Iran -- and possibly Russia and China.

The question is why now?

The only answer that comes to mind is that the gov't knows we are on the brink of another economic meltdown. This makes perfect sense. They will distract us from their failed economic policies with another war.
MHG

W*GS
08-27-2013, 05:06 PM
The coming attack on Syria is really just the prelude to war with Iran -- and possibly Russia and China.

You forgot "possibly" North Korea, Zimbabwe, Paraguay, Luxembourg, Canada, and the Vatican.