West Asia News and Discussions

[habal]

i don't why i get this nagging feeling, mother Russia is not giving up easily this time:

they can also help by not openly declaring war, but by tracking all US subs in the med and disabling a few in case they fire any tomacocks.

imposing defacto no-fly zone by targeting Syria's airfields and bases was always high on western agenda, and was a constant demand by rebels. So maybe the main target will be the airfields and air assets.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_2 ... ssia-7730/

"Plans are in the works to send a Russian-Ukrainian volunteer corps to Syria to help its leadership with the struggle against the rebels. Several thousand people have already signed up. This came in a statement from the initiator of the volunteer formation, Ukrainian intelligence veteran, Sergey Razumovsky.

“We have literally met with a squall. On all our electronic resources there are requests from people who want to join the corps, mainly from Russia, Belarus, and even Moldova,” Razumovsky says.

As for citizens of Ukraine, according to him, they “react with difficulty, so far”.

According to the intelligence veteran, the government of the Republic did not respond to the initiative. It is not specified when the formation of the corps will be completed.

In mid-May, Razumovsky delivered a video message about the establishment of the volunteer corps. He addressed his appeal to “all the military veterans of the Soviet Union, and Russian and Ukrainian officers living in Ukraine”.

Recalling the unsuitable living conditions of the officers, Razumovsky stated that they could offer their skills to the authorities of other countries - namely, to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad restore constitutional order.

According to Razumovsky, in return, the Syrian authorities can grant citizenship to volunteers, provide insurance to their (the volunteers’) families and help them find housing and take up residence after the war."

The ANNA site is people who volunteer to help report the situation in Syria. They see the attacks in Syria as part of a western assault on all independent states and realise if people continue to postpone resisting this fascism, it will soon be coming home to them in their own countries.

This volunteerism is what happened in the Spanish civil war, where many people from around the world volunteered to help defeat the fascists there who were being protected, supplied and supported by the western nations.

یا علی مدد,

[Philip]

Putin and Russia are too hard-headed to rashly get involved in an outside conflict unlike the US/West.They learnt their lessons the hard way in Afghanistan and in Chechenya.But don't underestimate the Russians.Where their core security is concerned,Chechenya,Georgia,they act.The 11th hr. visit by Prince Bandar to the Kremlin to seek a deal with Russia,offering it major concessions in energy trade,plus a guarantee that Russia will not be evicted from its Syrian naval port facilities, is meant to stay Russia's hand in direct mil. support for Assad in the inevitable US led attacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... eady-obama
US strike on Syria could come within days as military assets 'ready to go'
Defence secretary says resources have been moved into place, but White House says options do not include 'regime change'

How this will deter Iran is another Q.They will never allow the Sunni Wahaabists to gain control over Syria and Lebanon.Their response is going to be assymetric.As for the Syrian "rebels",they want regime change! As a first step the Balkanisation of Syria is afoot with plans for large strategically drawn up "safe zones" for the rebels and their captive population.

And what about "collateral damage"? Are Syrian civilians killed by the white massa acceptable ? Is there any difference between a gassed corpse and a blown-to-smithereens remnants of a corpse? Syrians killed by US/Western strikes are hunky-dory,"natives and injuns are fair game",a fact of life that we've seen played out in Iraq,Afghanistan,Pak,etc.,where lakhs have been killed as a direct consequence.

"Believe it or not".Here's the globe's grandmaster of hypocrisy on the subject,the co-architect of the Iraq War,Tony B.Liar on the issue.What was he displaying then? SO according to B.Liar,Obama,Cameron and co. are merely displaying their manhood to the world.Ye Gods!

Bombing Syria won't make the blindest bit of difference, Tony Blair
Talk of armed intervention in Syria is all about western powers satisfying their desire not to look impotent


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... bing[quote]

Bombing Syria won't make the blindest bit of difference, Tony Blair

Talk of armed intervention in Syria is all about western powers satisfying their desire not to look impotent
Giles Fraser
theguardian.com, Tuesday 27 August 2013 11.03 BST

Tony Blair Syria crisis
Tony Blair's calls for military action in Syria 'would be doing little more than satisfying our own sense of retributive morality and one that has become blurred with a large dollop of action-hero crap.' Photograph: Chris Jackson/PA

His comment piece in the Times today (paywalled link) is vintage Tony Blair: "Western policy is at a crossroads: commentary or action; shaping events or reacting to them." In other words, we must stop wringing our hands from the sidelines, it's time for action. Cue some macho sabre-rattling and the firing up of jet engines in Cyprus. Yet the prospect of bombing Bashar al-Assad's army is entirely reactive. Simply an escalation of tit-for-tat that changes none of the fundamental political geography. It is all about the urgent need to do something – or worse, the need to be seen to do something.

What politicians hate most is the perception that they are ineffective and that they are being led by events rather than in control of them. Yet this is precisely what an attack on Syria would represent. For there is obviously no wider plan as to how the west might enable Syria to transition to a more stable and peaceful state. Perhaps no such plan is possible.

I am not saying that armed intervention is always mistaken. If it could help fix things, or even improve them, all well and good. And that is where a plan comes in. But if the logic is simply that Assad is a 24-carat wrong-un, that his use of chemical weapons against his own people is a moral outrage, therefore we need to act – then we are doing little more than satisfying our own sense of retributive morality, and one that has become blurred with a large dollop of action-hero crap.

The problem with this is that it makes the tragedy of Syria all about us, about our need to act, and not about them. What we learned from Iraq is that our desire for immediate action can blind us to the less adrenaline-pumped requirements of the long view.

So, will somebody please explain to us how bombing Assad will make the blindest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things? Because if this is really all about our political leaders being incapable of dealing with their own impotence, then dropping bombs is not going to help.
[/quote]

[Austin]

Russia has little incentive in supporting the Syria regime beyond providing Diplomatic Support and Arms .. because any thing more than that would involve ground forces to make it effective and there is just one way ticket into such mess with no exit in sight , look at American long involvement in Iraq and then in Afghanistan .......all they ended up was more body count and the situation is more worse or no better compared to when they went in.

Legally too Russia has no basis to intervene as Syria is not a CSTO country which gurantees protection from member state.

Without Diplomatic support at UN from Russia and China this war would have been over a year back or so and Syria would by now would have been like a mini Iraq with no respite from bombings by AQ elements .............. more or less thanks to the delays by now even the West knows that without an alternate in sight this would become a bigger mess hence defacto is better as it stands today.

A cruise missile strike wont do much damage as we have seen many sustained cruise missile strike on Iraq and Serbia in the past and it hasnt done much other then hitting some fixed asset the asset that can be moved around would have been already move around as part of Std Ops by military.

Most likely a short quick strike would just be to keep izzat of POTUS on the RED LINE he spoke about a year back and things wont change much on ground compared to what it is now.

If the strike indeed happens it would be interesting to see how Syrian AD copes up with it since this would be the first time they would face aerial threats in this 2 year war. Also Syrian AD has smaller but more modern AD like BUK-M2.

Best bet for SAA is to keep their AD on the move constantly and randomise their movement to minimise the damage .....The Serbian managed to do that very effectively with 60 AD system in 99 and post war Assesment by NATO mentioned that their AD was largely intact , SAA will face many times over far less AD threats.

[habal]

Not so easy, once Russia loses credibility over Syria, it can say bye-bye to all future friendships, alliances, arms markets, strategic partnerships. After all who wants to partner a country that can not protect it's friends. To give up someone for whom they put at stake their international credibility and strategic relevance can only be devastating. No two ways.

some little details meanwhile:

Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack Carried Out by Rebels, Says UN (UPDATE)
Added by Graham Noble on August 27, 2013.

UN in Syria
As the Syrian revolt continues to tear the country apart, the international community has been eager to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as it became clear that the rebels do not, in fact, represent a popular uprising against the oppression of the Assad regime. According to UN diplomat Carla del Ponte, however, it appears that the recent chemical weapons attack, in April, was carried out by the Syrian rebels and not the regime, as it had been widely assumed. Speaking to a Swiss television channel, del Ponte said that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. She also said UN investigators had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but that further investigation was needed.

A spokesman for the rebels denied responsibility for the most recent attack, which allegedly involved the deployment of sarin nerve gas. He pointed out that the Free Syrian Army does not possess the missiles or shells necessary to deliver the chemical agent. Sarin gas, however, can be delivered in a number of ways. Additionally, while the rebels claim that the chemical agent was delivered by missiles or artilery, there is no evidence of a missile strike or shelling in any of the many videos that have been uploaded to the internet in the wake of the alleged attack.

After swift initial progress in the more than two-year-old conflict, the rebel advance was stalled as Lebanese terror group Hezbollah sent fighters to the regime’s aid. Whilst a number of towns have been taken and then retaken by each side, Assad’s forces have gradually gained the upper hand. With his army making gains and the eyes of the world upon him, it seems unlikely that the Syrian President would risk carrying out a chemical attack – particularly against an urban area. The Syrian government has flatly denied responsibility for this latest alleged chemical weapons attack and although not widely reported in the western media, there is broad suspicion that it was, indeed, carried out by the rebels. Ultimately, it may prove impossible for UN inspectors to determine who was responsible for the incident. Further, their investigation may be curtailed by the seemingly imminent military action – possibly in the form of cruise missile strikes – by the United States and the United Kingdom.

US President Obama has sent out mixed messages, regarding his intentions towards Syria; whilst he has stated that the US would not take military action against Syria without a UN mandate, it appears that preparations for an attack are already well underway, with American and British naval forces massing in the region. There is widespread speculation that strikes could be carried out within a week, despite strong and repeated warnings from both Russia and Iran, as well as the Syrian regime itself.

One of the most ominous repercussions of US intervention against the Syrian government is the possibility that Iran and it’s surrogate in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will launch strikes against Israel, in retaliation. This, in turn, could lead to a regional war, with Russia and the US lined up on opposing sides.

The United States government has been quick to condemn the Syrian government for the latest chemical weapons attack. Now that much of the evidence suggests it may have been carried out by the al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels, President Obama should remember that he, along with his supporters and political allies, devoted much time to condemning his predecessor for leading the US into war based on questionable intelligence.



UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify one or two points that some of our readers found misleading: The chemical attack earlier this year was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. It is this attack that the UN now concludes was carried out by Syrian rebels. It appears unlikely – for a number of reasons – that the most recent August 21st attack was carried out by government forces – despite the rush to judgement within the international community – although this has yet to be fully determined. It is clear that both sides in the Syrian conflict have the means to use chemical weapons and it would be misguided to assume that either side has a moral objection to such attacks.

As Jean Pascal Zanders, formerly of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, has pointed out ”In fact, we – the public – know very little beyond the observation of outward symptoms of asphyxiation and possible exposure to neurotoxicants, despite the mass of images and film footage. For the West’s credibility, I think that governments should await the results of the U.N. investigation.”

An Editorial by Graham J Noble

http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian-ch ... s-says-un/

[Austin]

Not so easy, once Russia loses credibility over Syria, it can say bye-bye to all future friendships, alliances, arms markets, strategic partnerships. After all who wants to partner a country that can not protect it's friends. To give up someone for whom they put at stake their international credibility and strategic relevance can only be devastating. No two words.

So exactly what do you expect Russia support them militarily and end up in direct confrontation with NATO and start a WW3 ?

For all the bravado from Congress men and Senators even the US did not directly helped Georgia in war against Russia and only limited to diplomatic support.

If any thing else Syria should be thankful to Russia , China for supporting them diplomatically and preventing a outright attack 2 years back else this game would have been over by now and Syria would have been in far bigger mess. Look at Libya where it stands now.

The delay has helped only Assad as the world got to see the other side of FSA ......even the west is not betting on FSA these days even though they dont like Assad.

[habal]

So exactly what do you expect Russia support them militarily and end up in direct confrontation with NATO and start a WW3 ?

So when it comes to crunch, Russia will never support allies. Because they are afraid of WW3 ?

With one illwell-timed swish of the sword, the bandar has cut the nose of the emperor.

[Austin]

Supporting allies as in exactly entails what ? Tomorrow they might expect Russia to militarily support Iran because US or Israel strikes on it.

The best way to support Syria for Russia and China is to provide them Diplomatic Support at UN , Arms and Food and Intelligence if they have any ......any thing more than that would just mean two thing for Russia more body bags and loss to economy.

This is primarily a Sunni , Shia war any parties supporting the other would simply end up burning its fingers and economy ........not a wise thing to do IMO.

The fight will go on irrespective if Assad is alive or dead tommorow or if he continues to rule or not ......Look at Iraq today or even Libya ......its more of the sectarian nature of conflict that is on going this thing cannot be stopped.

Best bet to stop this fight is to talk and get some agreement under UN auspicious agreeable to all the parties , even in worst case if it means dividing Syria then it is fine but thats the worst case.

[abhishek_sharma]

Assad's Cold Calculation: The Poison Gas War on the Syrian People

[Austin]

So when it comes to crunch, Russia will never support allies. Because they are afraid of WW3 ?

With one illwell-timed swish of the sword, the bandar has cut the nose of the emperor.

You should remember when the times were good , Gaddafi , Assad and Saddam were dealing with every one and dining with the West ....things were honky dory then and West were their best friends and allies.

When the tide turns and things go bad they expect Russia to come as their guardian angel and save them from evil west.

Nice Expectations and may be to some extent a valid one so they got what they deserved. If Russia has not learnt any thing from Afghanistan debacle and similar debacle of US in Iraq then its high time they do , else they will burn their fingers in this business.

[Austin]

Russia sends another plane to evacuate citizens from Syria

After nearly 90 Russians were evacuated from Syria on Tuesday, the emergencies ministry sent another plane for citizens willing to leave the war-torn country, a spokeswoman said.

“An Il-62 plane took off for Latakia. This special flight is for Russian and CIS nationals who had earlier expressed their determination to return to Moscow,” emergencies ministry spokeswoman Irina Rossius said.

A total of 89 people, mostly women and children, returned to Moscow onboard a plane which landed in the Domodedovo airport late on Tuesday.

Situation is Syria, where more than 100,000 people have been killed in a civil war since 2011, further deteriorated last week, following media reports of a chemical attack.

[Sanku]

Austin, Russia can still a number of things, for one, it can help Iran, with food and weapons, what this will do is free up Iran from the crunch situation that it is in and allow it to deflect its man power.

It can give a go ahead to Assad to use CWs and supply hard to detect chemical weapons. It can turn the screws on Jews Israel through various manners (such as saying that Assad is free to hit Israel and escalate through Hezb, thus wreking Obama's peace pipe dreamsplans ) -- It can lean on the Greek Orthodox church and push buttons there.

It can get into a full alliance with the Shia against the Sunni.

And this is just off the top of my head.

[Austin]

Austin, Russia can still a number of things, for one, it can help Iran, with food and weapons, what this will do is free up Iran from the crunch situation that it is in and allow it to deflect its man power.

It did what it can do , it saved Iran from sanctions many times by vetoing resolution that was considered as biased towards it , helped with building N reactors , provide arms or what ever possible within UN sanctions , Medvedev regiem was more pro Western but it realized later of the down fall of supporting West.

Ofcourse there could be other co-operation we may be not aware specially when it comes to intelligence.

But you have to understand that Iran is a fiercely independent country and is not allay of Russia in the sense it is not a part of CSTO group of nations that is it obliged to protect similar to NATO agreement, it may be Russias good friend but not a Allay much like say India is a good friend but not an allay so Russia is under no legal obligation to protect Iran militarily from any Western Unilateral strikes it can at best Veto UN effort to do so.

At best it can prop up Iran , train then ,provide support financially militarily etc but cannot fight on its behalf or let CSTO do for it .... and I doubt Iran would need that or agree to it , I am sure Iran has the means to develop Nuclear weapons and that itself guarantee her survival and being a Shia nation it would have its own sympathiser around West Asia.

It can give a go ahead to Assad to use CWs and supply hard to detect chemical weapons. It can turn the screws on Jews Israel through various manners (such as saying that Assad is free to hit Israel and escalate through Hezb, thus wreking Obama's peace pipe dreamsplans ) -- It can lean on the Greek Orthodox church and push buttons there.

It can get into a full alliance with the Shia against the Sunni.

And this is just off the top of my head.

I dont think any one in the world would appreciate Assad using NCB when most major nations including Russia have adhered to CBW Treaty ... Chemical Weapons is a strict NO and is inhumane to use specially on civilians.

Unless one wants to see the entire ME in crises today because of Syria and that has its own consequences not just for ME but the World including India , Imagine the Oil Price Rise effect on us , even the news of US Strikes on Syria has kept oil prices going north in past 2 days.

I think the best bet is to talk and resolve the crises at worst I can see Syria getting divided along sectarian lines but thats worst case , No one is betting on Assad not even Russia or Iran or West he is just there because of circumstances but what is a substitute to it ? Right now nothing unless talks starts and parties agree to the future of this country.

[Lalmohan]

i can't believe the insanity going around on the syrian war... unbelievable behaviour from 'the powers that be' on all sides of this mess
(and i've never been a peacenik)

[vishvak]

Didn't the Indian government know what is going to happen with Syrian war going on for years and now direct NATO attacks? Where does the strategic contracts with Iran stand today - other than some babu's archive somewhere - knowing fully well its importance.

Perhaps some high preaching moral keepers don't know what US sanctions regime means - paperwork, fines & outright arrest warrant in US court and litigation. What has babus done to shield Indians against it? In one word - nothing. This is in reference to Iranian -only petrochemical industry specific - sanctions. What cover does government give against such litigations exactly? It is people on ground doing work who have to run solo Marathon because government appears to be in "what to do" mode instead of being in service of citizens.

Come to think of it - there are at least 2 outright chemical attacks on Syrians; war is ongoing for years now along with its bloodthirst by al-mobs; about 10-lakh refugees and more than lakh killed - where are sanctions on trainers of al-mobs or those supplying chemical weapons to al-mobs?

And Indians have to face sanctions to import oil from Iran!

Even the forthcoming NATO attack is due to Arap Saudis and Oman disliking 'Iran influence' in Syria along with NATO countries accepting attacks in local parliaments. Where are sanctions on independent Arap wars and their backers warring in Syria.

[Surya]

the propaganda is in full flow

all the retired military Analysts are out peddling the usual tripe

man its amazing - almost feel Dubya will step on TV and make an announcement

have to give it to the pukes - they have certainly refined their manipulation to an art form - lesser countries get bombed to hell and they keep getting aid while killing US troops

[Sanku]

have to give it to the pukes - they have certainly refined their manipulation to an art form - lesser countries get bombed to hell and they keep getting aid while killing US troops

That is because Pakistan is an arm of US, as much CIA is. They might as well make a formal declaration.

[Austin]

Plus Paki have Nukes and if you have Nukes you end up getting support from US grudgingly and they also ensure you dont become a failed state so that Nuke dont fall in wrong hand so they also give you money and arms to protect them from wrong hands

[Sanku]

At best it can prop up Iran , train then ,provide support financially militarily etc

Austin, I am not asking for Russia to involve itself with boots on the ground, in any case demographically it is a no no for them for another 10-20 years (till Putin era changes are mainstream) -- this is apart from the treaties etc. (which I dont think matter a whit any more anyway)

What I am saying is that Russia's bag of tricks is large and full, despite all the hoo haa in western press. With Putin at the helm, I do not think that Russia is going to let Syria, slip away.

I am talking of various possible levers that Russia has.

I dont think any one in the world would appreciate Assad using NCB when most major nations including Russia have adhered to CBW Treaty ... Chemical Weapons is a strict NO and is inhumane to use specially on civilians.

CW are already used, and inhumane activity is already underway, starving no combantants, carrying out deliberate strikes on civlians to lower the moral of the regime etc are being done by americans and will be done even more as time goes by.

That bridge if it was even real, has been crossed long time by.

Unless one wants to see the entire ME in crises today because of Syria and that has its own consequences not just for ME but the World including India , Imagine the Oil Price Rise effect on us , even the news of US Strikes on Syria has kept oil prices going north in past 2 days.

From a Russian perspective, how is that a bad thing? It may not be good for India, sure, but how does Russia suffer by a chotic West Asia? In fact better for them to hammer these oiseuales in that area rather than have them run around in their back yard, in Afg and Chechenya and other such places.

I think the best bet is to talk....

Talks are dead, this matter will be resolved this way or that, and I think the matter will be decided by de facto alliance between Iran and Russia and (if we had a govt which did not behave like Dawood's viceroy) in future, India.

It is a matter of survival of countries not willing to roll over and die under US hegemony.

[Aditya_V]

Plus Paki have Nukes and if you have Nukes you end up getting support from US grudgingly and they also ensure you dont become a failed state so that Nuke dont fall in wrong hand so they also give you money and arms to protect them from wrong hands

Pakis have nukes because the Saudis and in turn the Americans wants them to. Prince Bandar was instrumental in Saudis financing Pakis Nuke competent and M-9 purchases from China in the late 80's and 90's.

They are instrumental tool and Saudis see them as thier eastern wing(a.k.a slaves). That is why thier shennigans are being tolerated not because of any might the Pakis themselves have. USA does this by trying to create false excuses, but a strong rabid Pakistan is what they want.

[Philip]

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?
Robert Fisk

Tuesday 27 August 2013
‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime

f Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

British military men,etc., warn against military action.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... tervention
Syria crisis: experts split over western intervention
Some military figures balk at thought of attacks, while others including Tony Blair favour action

General Sir David Richards, who stood down as chief of the defence staff only earlier this summer, is among several British military figures understood to be balking at the thought of direct attacks.

Lord West, the former first sea lord, urged diplomacy before military aggression and was among those worried that the west could find itself sucked into a vortex of violence in the region. He said the first move should be determining who launched the chemical weapons and, if it was Assad, there should be a UN resolution condemning the head of state for using them against his own people.

"I'm very wary of military action, even if it is a limited missile strike," he told the Daily Mail. "What do we hope to achieve? Where will it lead? What if Assad says: 'Get lost,' and uses chemical weapons again? Are we going to escalate military action? I have a horrible feeling that one strike would quickly become more. The region is a powder keg. We simply can't predict which way military action will go and whether it would draw us, unwillingly, further into a conflict."

The former defence secretary Lord King said it was imperative to find a solution "and it mustn't be military".

"This is turning into such a conflagration that it is becoming extremely dangerous," he said. "I am appalled by the idea that the regime, if that is the case as it appears, would use chemicals against its own people. But the difficulties in how we respond do not become any easier."

Richards has previously voiced fears that pin-prick strikes could aggravate rather than resolve the situation in the country and that the extent of an effective campaign to rescue Syria is beyond Britain.

Max Hastings, the military historian and journalist, gave a directly opposing analysis, saying Syria was "a hideously intractable situation in which we meddle at our peril" and it was "impossible to foresee a happy ending" in any intervention.

[Garooda]

Not sure if this was posted but its a brief timeline since the announcement of possible strike on Syria.

Syria_Crisis_TimeLine_And_Possible_Military_Strike

[Garooda]

UN asks to wait for 4 more days before using any military action(s). A last ditch effort to reduce and prevent additional civilian casualties ? It feels that the UN is only being used to avoid the headaches with Russia. Remains to be seen if the 4 day deadline would be adhered to by the allied forces. Many possibilities.

Wait for 4 more days

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The United Nations is calling on the United States and its allies to wait longer on a potential military strike against Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday that a team of U.N. chemical weapons inspectors needs a total of four days to complete its investigation into an alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus in which Syrian activists say 1,300 people were killed.

“It is essential to establish the facts. A U.N. investigation team is now on the ground to do just that. Just days after the attack, they have collected valuable samples and interviewed victims and witnesses. The team needs time to do its job,” Ban said, according to CBS News, adding that a report needs to be sent to the U.N. Security Council.

U.N. envoy to Syria Lakdhar Brahimi said in Geneva that the Aug. 21 attack may have killed more than 1,000 people.

“With what has happened on the 21st of August last week, it does seem that some kind of substance was used that killed a lot of people: hundreds, definitely more than a hundred, some people say 300, some people say 600, maybe 1,000, maybe more than 1,000 people,” Brahimi said.

Brahimi backed Ban’s assertion that any possible military strike should go through the Security Council first.

“What they (Obama administration) will decide I don’t know. But certainly international law is very clear – the Security Council has to be brought in,” Brahimi said, according to CBS News, adding that the Obama administration was “not known to be trigger-happy.” Yeah right..so much for the Noble Peace Prize Vice President Joe Biden says there is no doubt that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons.

Biden’s comments Tuesday make him the highest-ranking U.S. official to say the Syrian regime is the culprit in a large-scale chemical weapons.

Biden says the Syrian government is the only actor in the 2-year civil war that possesses and can deliver chemical weapons. He says Assad has blocked U.N. investigators from the site and has been bombing it for days.

The White House says President Barack Obama hasn’t settled on how to respond to the attack. The Pentagon says U.S. military forces are ready to strike Syria if Obama gives the order.

We are prepared. We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the administration is not contemplating about a regime change in Syria.

“The options that we are considering are not about regime change,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing. “They are about responding to the clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.”

Interesting clip from 2007. Biden talking about impeachment of dubya if he would have started without congressional authority

Though technically the POTUS can launch an attack and notify congress within 48 hours (Can someone confirm if this holds true?)

Get_Authorization_For_Syria



Partial Transcript @5:25

Matthews: You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?

Biden:Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris, you've known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority...to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of

[IndraD]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l#comments

it is worth going through best rated comments, general opinion in UK is strongly against war

[Garooda]

6 ways Syria 2013 isn't Iraq 2003

[Garooda]

The two sides to the syrian crisis thus far. Feel free to add/re-arrange the players.

Team A:
United States
Syria (rebels/Al Qaeda)
United Kingdom
Cyprus
France
Saudi Arabia (?)
Israel (?)
Muslim Brotherhood

Team B:
Syria (current government)
Russia
China
Iran
Pakistan
Jordan (?)
North Korea

[Lilo]

Saar why Pakis in team B ?

As in allthings izzlamic they will be on the side of their purest fourfathers (aka al Saudis) which as a bonus also happens to be the same side of their fairest and tightest fourfathers (aka Turkics) ... even massa need not enter the picture here..

Only their mouth is on the side of Chinese...as usual

[member_27444]

TSP and Jordan should be team A along with USA and KSA

[vishvak]

Pukis must be there to exactly be pukis. Anyone other than their fourfathers would be in danger.

[kish]

Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has hacked twitter, and has posted their message.

[IndraD]

Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has hacked twitter, and has posted their message.

they could be chinese disguising as syrian, as later doesn't seem to have that capability

[kish]

Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has hacked twitter, and has posted their message.

they could be chinese disguising as syrian, as later doesn't seem to have that capability

Quite possible. Couple of days back Western hackers humbled Chinese network defenses.

[Garooda]

Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has hacked twitter, and has posted their message.

they could be chinese disguising as syrian, as later doesn't seem to have that capability

The world of espionage and cyber crime is such that it could be anyone of the alphabet agencies Even the NYTimes website was hacked earlier Why now or this week?

[Garooda]

Saar why Pakis in team B ?

What difference does it make? Pukis are known for switching despite their claims. Just look at the massa incursion in Afghanistan and the support against massa from them These would be your non-military types.

[Garooda]

TSP and Jordan should be team A along with USA and KSA

Wasn't sure thus the question mark I seriously doubt that Jordan and Egypt will join.

[Garooda]

This comment is hilarious
One_Two_Punch

21 minutes ago.Steve Hammond Wrote:
If you really want to get nasty with Syria then i suggest a one, two punch. Open a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank there swiftly followed by rolling out Obamacare. They'll be begging for mercy inside of a month!

[Garooda]

Western Military Options as per BBC.

Western_Military_Options






Syria Military Options as per BBC.

Syria_Military_Options

[Garooda]

As anticipated ??
Bypass_UN?

The State Department made clear that it plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as the administration prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia during discussions on Wednesday.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

"We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria," she said. "Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead."

[Surya]

legalities are only to tell us why we are sanctioned

when it comes to pukis all sort of workarounds are found

when it comes to Egypt - undecided - might swing it either way

when it comes to favorite country - no legalities - its a higher power that ordains it

[chanakyaa]

Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has hacked twitter, and has posted their message.
they could be chinese disguising as syrian, as later doesn't seem to have that capability

The world of espionage and cyber crime is such that it could be anyone of the alphabet agencies Even the NYTimes website was hacked earlier Why now or this week?

Cyber security is not very easy to break. These days Twitter manages to stay in limelight every time some international event happens, like Facebook came in limelight (or managed to come in limelight) during Arap spring!! Makes me wonder.........Twitter is busy increasing its market value before IPO and NYTimes is dying to stay relevant....just thinking out of the box....

[abhishek_sharma]

City of the Lost: In the world’s second-largest refugee camp, Syrians find that it’s not easy to flee the war.