Damascus preparing for Western military strike: people flee country, military commands relocated

[mania]

David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

If Obama took a vote ( As he should ) he would lose too.

[Mosha]

David Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

If Obama took a vote ( As he should ) he would lose too.

Not much cheer for Labour either, their motion went down with a bigger majority

.

[pastafarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Han5fgzy4KU

[mania]

That video Pastafarian posted should be required education/viewing for the "defend Obama's honor" group

cheering on the attack on Syria

[Mosha]

That video Pastafarian posted should be required education/viewing for the "defend Obama's honor" group

cheering on the attack on Syria

Need subtitles though.

[F430murci]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

[Mosha]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

So killing Christians is ok but killing muslims isn't. Getting fed up of the BBC's biased reporting.

nb I'm an athiest

[Ulysses G.]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

A soon as I saw that it was George Galloway, I knew that it was a waste of time.

On the other hand, your video is worth watching, but very sad.

[F430murci]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

A soon as I saw that it was George Galloway, I knew that it was a waste of time.

On the other hand, your video is worth watching, but very sad.

I cannot watch stuff like this any more. I cannot stand to see children suffer like that. US needs to take out Syrian air strips, gas supplies and planes to help stop stuff like this. This could easily be done without putting civilians in harms way.

The selfish side of me says f'em, not our problem and just hurts our economy, but there has to be something someone can do to try and protect the innocent. Those animals are intentionally targeting innocents and children.

[simple1]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

So killing Christians is ok but killing muslims isn't. Getting fed up of the BBC's biased reporting.

nb I'm an athiest

The BBC has covered attacks on Christians in Syria a number of times, with a recent example below. Syrian Christians mainly supported the Assad dictatorship, from reports had more protection from him; they are not a non-aligned innocent party in this conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

[Mosha]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

So killing Christians is ok but killing muslims isn't. Getting fed up of the BBC's biased reporting.

nb I'm an athiest

The BBC has covered attacks on Christians in Syria a number of times, with a recent example below. Syrian Christians mainly supported the Assad dictatorship, from reports had more protection from him; they are not a non-aligned innocent party in this conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

So who else could they support?

[Scott]

Off-topic and inflammatory posts have been deleted.

[Publicus]

Iran with its nuclear weapons program and North Korea with theirs are watching very closely to see whether Prez Obama keeps his word that, when a red line is established, it is crossed only at great cost.

[Scott]

This topic is about Syria and is not about US partisan politics.

An off-topic post has been deleted and continued baiting of other posters into off-topic discussions is going to result in warnings being issued.

There are other threads where US politics is more appropriate.

[nong38]

Perhaps we should send a Battalion of Thaivisa Trolls to Syria to sort it out overnight

[Publicus]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

So killing Christians is ok but killing muslims isn't. Getting fed up of the BBC's biased reporting.

nb I'm an athiest

The BBC has covered attacks on Christians in Syria a number of times, with a recent example below. Syrian Christians mainly supported the Assad dictatorship, from reports had more protection from him; they are not a non-aligned innocent party in this conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

Christians have to support Assad....the alternative is too horrible to contemplate...i.e Islamist govt..

....by the way I think Obama will have to recall the dogs of war.

Russia and China won't budge and he doesn't have the cojones to antagonize them....

Moscow and Beijing can do nothing to stop the United States in this. They are helpless.

The focus instead is on Western resolve and unity, or the lack of it. If the West is united, it's a go. Disunity, as we are witnessing, leaves Prez Obama as the sole actor and decision maker.

What do you think Prez Obama is going to do given all the pressing exigencies?

He's going to press the red button, that's what he's going to do.

Moscow and Beijing can only take photos of the fireworks, nothing more.

[Gulfsailor]

I think it is fairly obvious what is going on here, and has been for the past couple of years. As long as the Middle East factions are divided and are busy fighting one another, they can't organise large scale attacks in western countries. Secondly, the last thing the US, Russia, China or Europe wants is a peaceful and prospering Middle East. Either Saudi or Iran would take over control of the region, and thus there would be another superpower arriving at the scene. Lastly unstable Middle East is good for the ecomomies of US, Russia and China. Oil and gas deals can be better negotiated when a country desperately needs money to pay for weapons, which they purchase from US, Russia and China.

Obama has long since decided together with Russia and China counterparts what the best course of action is to make this shit in Syria go on as long as possible. The fact that Syria government was starting to get the upper hand, meant that US had to interfere to prolong the conflict. When it will appear later that rebel factions are starting to win, measures will be taken to keep that in check.

[Ulic]

Both sides are equally guilty. It is a civil war. Everyone should stay out. The US in particular have zero, zero, zero credibility

when it comes to military intelligence. No wmd's in Iraq, over a million killed. Vietnam over 2 million killed, agent orange everywhere, and all the Vietnamese wanted was freedom from colonial rule. Somalia, Libya. Are Libyans better of now or is it the same but new leadership. Have any of there decisions worked out for the better. I guess the Balkans but that is about it.

Both sides have an agenda in a civil war and on the outside countries take sides in things they really do not understand and are manipulated by one side or another. But at least the British Parliament has voted to stay out as the likes of McCain and the hawks push Obama into an unpopular action.

[geriatrickid]

Here is how seriously Putin regime takes Bama.

"The West behaves like a monkey with a grenade in the Islamic world," Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Amid-Syria-tensions-Russia-sends-more-warships-to-Mediterranean-324638

When did President Obama become the "west"?

On one hand you ridicule the POTUS for considering intervening in Syria, and yet on the other hand your above posts demand immediate intervention.

Which position is it?

I can't speak for the USA, but it seems that the people are weary of war, the economy cannot support another war, and the POTUS is attempting to show restraint despite the frantic pounding of the war drums from the GOP war core. McCain has demonstrated his inability to comprehend arab politics over and over, and yet there he is pushing for intervention. The Russians can criticize the west all it wants, but it is Russia that has kept Assad in power and it is Russia that subsidized the Syrian killings. Let the arab world complain to mother Russia. Let the rabid protestors that are always quick to take to the streets of London go out in force and protest against Russia and China.

[Publicus]

Both sides are equally guilty. It is a civil war. Everyone should stay out. The US in particular have zero, zero, zero credibility

when it comes to military intelligence. No wmd's in Iraq, over a million killed. Vietnam over 2 million killed, agent orange everywhere, and all the Vietnamese wanted was freedom from colonial rule. Somalia, Libya. Are Libyans better of now or is it the same but new leadership. Have any of there decisions worked out for the better. I guess the Balkans but that is about it.

Both sides have an agenda in a civil war and on the outside countries take sides in things they really do not understand and are manipulated by one side or another. But at least the British Parliament has voted to stay out as the likes of McCain and the hawks push Obama into an unpopular action.

Prez Obama makes his own decisions.

Sen McCain in Japan early this week had to backtrack on part of his statement concerning U.S. policy regarding the sovereignty of islands in dispute between Japan and the CCP-PRC.

McCain had said Washington recognizes Japanese sovereignty when it does not. The U.S. ambassador had to point this out to Sen McCain. Sen McCain then corrected his statement to comport to the president's position that the U.S. supports peaceful negotiations to resolve the sovereignty issue, which Beijing does not do.

Prez Obama comes to us with no strings attached.

[lomatopo]

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

[simple1]

These people seriously suck arse hard. Napalming school kids. Lovely human beings.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

While you guys are having your little selfish circle jerk parties over political rhetoric videos children are getting maimed. F that video a few posts above of some stuffy arse grand stander. The video in this post is reality. That video above is politics and selfish rhetoric. Watch the little political speech video from some stuffy bald fat dude that needs a testosterone injection. . . Please . . . Warped arse values is the kindest way I can put it.

So killing Christians is ok but killing muslims isn't. Getting fed up of the BBC's biased reporting.

nb I'm an athiest

The BBC has covered attacks on Christians in Syria a number of times, with a recent example below. Syrian Christians mainly supported the Assad dictatorship, from reports had more protection from him; they are not a non-aligned innocent party in this conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22270455

Christians have to support Assad....the alternative is too horrible to contemplate...i.e Islamist govt..

....by the way I think Obama will have to recall the dogs of war. Russia and China won't budge and he doesn't have the cojones to antagonize them....

Yes, I know Christians no longer have any options other than trying to flee the country or support Assad. I assume those of military age would be conscripted. Unless the Assad regime defeats the rebel forces or there is a lengthy stalemate they are in deep sh#t. No idea what level of engagement/support the Christian community gave to the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 prior to the Assad regime’s suppression

[NeverSure]

I think the idea is to send a message saying don't use them or there's more where this came from. I'm not sure how that requires destroying them if there's too much danger in doing so.

Sometimes what seems like the second best option is actually the only option?

This comes from John Schindler PhD who is a Professor at the U.S. Naval War College where officers on track to have major naval commands spend one year of concentrated and intense study.

10 Things Everyone Needs To Understand About A Military Strike In Syria

The strategy of the Syrian nightmare merits a book in itself, not a mere blog post, but I will share some strategic insights in no particular order, based on my experiences with America’s post-Cold War military adventures.

1. The enemy gets a vote. Always. He will react in ways you cannot accurately predict. Israel is close-by: hint.

2. When your enemy is on “death ground” – as Assad and his Alawi and Christian supporters surely are – they care a lot more about this fight than you do, or ever will.

3. “Surgical strikes” belong in PowerPoints by greedy defense contractors, not the real world of warfare.

4. When all belligerents in a conflict are morally repugnant, you ought to choose sides carefully (better yet: don’t).

5. Proxy wars will last far longer, and turn out far nastier, than seems logical, especially when the stakes seem high for one or more outside players.

6. If you want to seriously effect change you will wind up putting boots on the ground. Period. If you ignore this reality – or worse, guess wrong about how many troops you need – you may create a firestorm (see: Iraq 2003).

7. Putting Western boots on the ground in cultures where we and our values are hated is a bad idea unless you are willing to play by their rules, ie be highly brutal on a grand scale towards even civilians. Better not to do it.

8. Never, ever stop thinking about the value of the object, ie what do we really want here? Negative aims are fine, but not having clear, achievable aims is a good way to lose quick.

9. Certain cultures are not impressed by “surgical strikes.” They use mass brutality and think anything less is weak, even effeminate.

10. US and NATO are very good at ISR and precision strike, we have learned an enormous amount about the tactics of hi-tech killing over the last dozen years of war in CENTCOM. But this is not the same thing as strategic wisdom or political insight. Strategy trumps tactics in the long run, always.

More as it happens … and you can bet a lot more will be happening soon.

Read more: http://20committee.com/2013/08/27/thinking-strategically-about-syria/#ixzz2dO0SCLWt

Again, I think the guy misses the whole point. While I've made it clear that I disagree with a strike on Syria, my belief is that Obama:

1. Said about a year ago that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

2. Maybe he feels that by not striking, no one will take him seriously again.

3. If 1 and 2 are correct, then the objective isn't to win or control anything. It's simply to make a statement for everyone watching that Obama, and therefore the US, is to be taken seriously.

4. If I had to guess, I'd wonder if the 4 carrier groups on sight are a message to Russia to stand back. Of course the groups also have plenty of missiles of all kinds on board if needed.

I don't like Obama. Never did. But danged if I'd want to be in his shoes right now. This is "exhibit A" of "The buck stops here."

Four carrier groups?! Last I heard it was 4 missile destroyers (with a 5th on the way). Where'd all the carriers come from all of a sudden? 4 carrier groups in the mix and we're way beyond missile strikes.

I realize there are 4 destroyers, but I "think" there are as many as 5 carrier groups within striking range. Excuse me if I'm mistaken. There are always carrier groups in that general area.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/9098130/Explainer-How-the-US-would-attack-Syria

[Publicus]

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

The forces assembled to intervene in Syria are naval, so what some generals say matters less. The air force would be involved, but not the army or the marines as there will not be any ground forces in the mix.

The military also was always completely opposed to Prez Clinton's intervention in Kosovo and Serbia, an operation which was a strategic success that concluded with Milosovic in the Hague before the War Crimes Tribunal.

Since the Vietnam Conflict the U.S. military always thinks up 1001 reasons not to act no matter what the situation, circumstance, place. The article above is very old news that has been trotted out numerous times during the past 35 years - just fill in the blank spaces for the name of the place, the date and the reasons against.

In Kosovo the reason against was the rugged terrain. In Syria it's a civil war. Etc.

It took Special Operations forces and an exceptional chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, led by a determined commander in chief, to go get bin Laden.

As far as the military is concerned, the bottom line is that orders are orders. Period.

[Ulysses G.]

I can't speak for the USA, but it seems that the people are weary of war, the economy cannot support another war, and the POTUS is attempting to show restraint despite the frantic pounding of the war drums from the GOP war core.

Actually, most Republicans are against intervention in Syria. It is Obama who is is pounding the war drums this time. He wants to save face for his red line remark, but very few Americans (or Brits) want to back him up on something that is not designed to do anything other than make a statement about him personally.

[F430murci]

As usual, everything is distorted and manipulated by political agendas of selfish politicians trying to get some attention. On top of that, Bama is really making missteps in judgment and rhetoric. His whole shot over the bow thing was really out of touch.

He should have began by stating that Asad is a war criminal and the civilians need protection from gas, chemicals and banned weapons. Children are being tortured and school yards are being napalmed by Syrian planes.

He then needed to articulate a firm plan and resolution to commit to surgical strikes to reduce Asad's capability to carry out such attacks against civilians and innocent children. A retired 4 star last night articulated a very detailed plan that could be accomplished in less than 3 days to take out gas, air strips, planes and Asad's primary capability to control the air and launch WMD.

That would sell to bleeding heart Americans who get out the checks books for children in need. This face saving crap of shooting a warning shot across the bow is just unbelievable and shows how out of sync he is with reality.

Anyway, looks like even with his missteps, 1/2 of US public would support surgical air strikes. Those 80 % numbers being thrown around by conservatives and conservative media appears to be based on ground troops or an invasion which is not even remotely on the table. Typical . . .

_____________

Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite

[mania]

Nearly 80% of Americans say President Obama should seek congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/30/americans-obama-congress-approval-syria-strike/2736855/

Polls always vary depending on the way the wind is blowing

Not a great gauge

[hawker9000]

I think the idea is to send a message saying don't use them or there's more where this came from. I'm not sure how that requires destroying them if there's too much danger in doing so.

Sometimes what seems like the second best option is actually the only option?

This comes from John Schindler PhD who is a Professor at the U.S. Naval War College where officers on track to have major naval commands spend one year of concentrated and intense study.

10 Things Everyone Needs To Understand About A Military Strike In Syria

The strategy of the Syrian nightmare merits a book in itself, not a mere blog post, but I will share some strategic insights in no particular order, based on my experiences with America’s post-Cold War military adventures.

1. The enemy gets a vote. Always. He will react in ways you cannot accurately predict. Israel is close-by: hint.

2. When your enemy is on “death ground” – as Assad and his Alawi and Christian supporters surely are – they care a lot more about this fight than you do, or ever will.

3. “Surgical strikes” belong in PowerPoints by greedy defense contractors, not the real world of warfare.

4. When all belligerents in a conflict are morally repugnant, you ought to choose sides carefully (better yet: don’t).

5. Proxy wars will last far longer, and turn out far nastier, than seems logical, especially when the stakes seem high for one or more outside players.

6. If you want to seriously effect change you will wind up putting boots on the ground. Period. If you ignore this reality – or worse, guess wrong about how many troops you need – you may create a firestorm (see: Iraq 2003).

7. Putting Western boots on the ground in cultures where we and our values are hated is a bad idea unless you are willing to play by their rules, ie be highly brutal on a grand scale towards even civilians. Better not to do it.

8. Never, ever stop thinking about the value of the object, ie what do we really want here? Negative aims are fine, but not having clear, achievable aims is a good way to lose quick.

9. Certain cultures are not impressed by “surgical strikes.” They use mass brutality and think anything less is weak, even effeminate.

10. US and NATO are very good at ISR and precision strike, we have learned an enormous amount about the tactics of hi-tech killing over the last dozen years of war in CENTCOM. But this is not the same thing as strategic wisdom or political insight. Strategy trumps tactics in the long run, always.

More as it happens … and you can bet a lot more will be happening soon.

Read more: http://20committee.com/2013/08/27/thinking-strategically-about-syria/#ixzz2dO0SCLWt

Again, I think the guy misses the whole point. While I've made it clear that I disagree with a strike on Syria, my belief is that Obama:

1. Said about a year ago that use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

2. Maybe he feels that by not striking, no one will take him seriously again.

3. If 1 and 2 are correct, then the objective isn't to win or control anything. It's simply to make a statement for everyone watching that Obama, and therefore the US, is to be taken seriously.

4. If I had to guess, I'd wonder if the 4 carrier groups on sight are a message to Russia to stand back. Of course the groups also have plenty of missiles of all kinds on board if needed.

I don't like Obama. Never did. But danged if I'd want to be in his shoes right now. This is "exhibit A" of "The buck stops here."

Four carrier groups?! Last I heard it was 4 missile destroyers (with a 5th on the way). Where'd all the carriers come from all of a sudden? 4 carrier groups in the mix and we're way beyond missile strikes.

I realize there are 4 destroyers, but I "think" there are as many as 5 carrier groups within striking range. Excuse me if I'm mistaken. There are always carrier groups in that general area.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/9098130/Explainer-How-the-US-would-attack-Syria

Truman and Nimitz were in the Arabian Sea a few days ago, one having just relieved the other on station. I believe those are the only two in the region, and I think they're considered out of range of Syria. Where are you getting your info from? Two of my sources: here and here. The Navy only has 11 carriers, and that includes the Gerald Ford, which is still building. I doubt half the total carrier force is even underway, let alone in that hemisphere, let alone within range of Syria.

[Publicus]

The Pentagon isn't saying too much about its Order of Battle concerning Syria, but sources are providing information to news media.

There are two aircraft carriers in the region within striking distance if aircraft were to be used, which is unlikely. The carrier Harry S. Truman has arrived in the Arabian Sea and the carrier Nimitz is outside the Sea in the Indian Ocean. The Truman was scheduled to relieve the Nimitz in the Arabian Sea but the Nimitz has been ordered to stand by rather than return to its home port in the U.S.

These two are the only U..S. aircraft carriers in the region. The carrier G.H.W. Bush is underway in the Atlantic Ocean to resume its usual station in the Mediterranean Sea/Europe.

The U.S. has four Aegis destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean with a fifth to arrive shortly. Each destroyer carries 40 cruise missiles. The U.S. also has one submarine on station with cruise missiles. The Pentagon has identified 50 to 56 targets to hit.

The standard procedure is to launch missiles at night and take satellite reconnaissance of damage during the day. The process is expected to continue over several days at the least until all targets are destroyed.

The arrival of two Russian naval ships to its port in Syria is regarded as negligible by Washington as there is nothing Russia can do to stop or deter the United States and allies from acting against Assad and his military forces.

As staunch as Russia has been in supporting Assad, to include huge amounts of cash during the past two years, Russia will not go to war against the United States to protect or to save Assad and his regime.

U.S., Russia Increase Naval Presence In Gulf Region

http://www.news9.com/story/23285853/us-russia-said-to-up-naval-presence-in-gulf-region

The USS Harry S Truman has arrived in the Arabian Sea and was scheduled to take the place of the USS Nimitz, which was supposed to head home. The Navy has ordered the Nimitz, which is in the Indian Ocean, to stay for now.

This, as the Russian news service Interfax is citing military sources as saying Moscow is dispatching an anti-submarine ship and a cruiser to the Mediterranean.

CBS News correspondent David Martin reports two submarines -- one American, one British -- are in the eastern Mediterranean along with four American destroyers and a fifth on the way -- all armed with cruise missiles. That's more than enough firepower for a strike Pentagon officials say would be limited to fewer than 50 targets.

[wellred]

I'm with the US. They should then the whole place into a glass crater and let that serve as an example to the rest of the Middle East.