Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

So is France knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting its findings in Syria so it can buddy up to the United States and to President Obama?

Correct. You are very astute.

It appears, to me anyway, that M. Hollande is reluctant to launch an attack without a "coalition", of at least two countries, including France.

Apres vous.

There's no rational response to this flippant attitude.

[Publicus]

I am just waiting for the Obama apologists, (they know who they are), to come on here and attempt to defend this latest atrocity. Here we have christian nuns desperately trying to protect young children, (orphans) from the onslaught from these Islamist nutters , probably armed by Mr Obama and his cohorts. It is absolutely sickening to be honest. But hey, the ends justify the means! Right! Does Obama have christian values?

I speak as one who swallowed all the hype when Obama was first elected, i freely admit what a fool i was. But at least i am honest enough to admit it! As i said in my previous post, i always thought that America was a christian country, not necessarily in the strict religious sense, i am not religious at all. I am talking about christian values. How on earth are the Republicans in the bible belt going to sell this to their core supporters? Here we have christian nuns, desperately trying to protect children,(orphans), from an onslaught by Islamic fundamentalists, holed up on a mountain at the mercy of these 'rebels' who are supported and armed by our politicians. Surely in the name of common decency and humanity this cannot be right. Is there no shame?

Who is Barack Obama? Where did he come from? Who's agenda is he working for? He is clearly very charismatic, he has fooled a lot of people, but a bit of research throws up a lot of questions about him.. All the liberals voted for him, believing that he was a new broom, his actions as President show that he has nothing but contempt for them and their views.And the really sad thing is that they just lap it up, as evidenced by some of his supporters on this forum. They are in total denial. Any poster on here that points out in an intellectual way, the clear hypocrisy of his actions compared to his rhetoric is immediately dismissed as a 'hater'.

The bottom line is this. For whatever reason, the current President of the United States is hell bent on ignoring the wishes of the people he is serving, and is going to launch an attack on Syria, in support of Islamic militants, Al Qaeda terrorists, in an attempt to overthrow a secular government and replace it with an Islamic fundamentalist regime. One can only speculate as to why, and whose interests he is serving.

An argument appealing to religion from a person who says he's not religious is hypocrisy and is absurd.

Trying to argue in this way constitutes a disingenuous pretext to assault Prez Obama.

[Publicus]

Anyone who says at any time that Russia looks sane and, by implication or explicitly, says the United States looks insane needs his head examined.

I guess I could copy you and either report this to the mods or just say that it is insulting, inflammatory yadda yadda yadda.

The least you could do, so as not to be completely hypocritical, would be to show the context of the statement - being that Russia looks the saner party simply because they are suggesting a path not strewn with countless dead - AGAIN - due to the US bombings.

Your response that Putin is a worse man because he'll be a bad host for the Olympics . .. well . . . even you must admit that's a bit sad.

Russia sold chemical weapons to Syria . . . the US sold chemical weapons to Sadaam to use against Iran. The US used napalm in Vietnam and Iraq and still have piles of the stuff.

Syria should not be another test site for US weaponry and ACCORDING TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD US bombings could have ramifications beyond what the myopic war-mongers can see

Putin supports Assad and they together have produced 100,000 dead civilians and millions of displaced Syrians as refugees in neighboring countries.

People who are determined to protect, save and preserve Putin and Assad together controlling Syria, along with Iran, have a point of view that is curious to say the least.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of arguments that protect, save and preserve the combined Middle East-Central Asian regime of Assad, Putin, Iran, not to mention Beijing.

One hundred thousand dead Syrian civilians and millions more live ones want Assad and his gang of butchers gone. That's step number one. Then deal with the next step, which is to support establishing a moderate Islamic government. That is doable and merits our focus and efforts.

Bombing Assad weakens his military capability. That is undeniable. That's a worthy and necessary step along the way to the final goal and purpose.

[boomerangutang]

I know it's cold to say this, but 100,000 dead Syrians is 100,000 less people trying to eke out a living in a region devoid of natural resources other than sand and sun. Best policy is to make less babies, then problems stemming from overpopulation will be less dire. Perhaps planes should be dropping containers of condoms on the Middle East instead of bombs. Plus, with Thailand looking for creative applications for its surplus rubber......

[Chicog]

I don't think introducing "Christian values" to this thread does any good whatsoever. They are often as retarded as the muslim ones.

[lomatopo]

Pentagon adjusts plans for more intense attacks on Syria

U.S. war planners are preparing for three days of attacks on Syria, a longer bombardment than originally envisioned.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is preparing for a longer bombardment of Syria than it originally had planned, with a heavy barrage of missile strikes followed soon after by more attacks on targets that the opening salvos missed or failed to destroy, officials said.

The planning for intense attacks over a three-day period reflects the growing belief in the White House and the Pentagon that the United States needs more firepower to inflict even minimal damage on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, which have been widely dispersed over the last two weeks, the officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-strikes-20130908,0,6708714.story

[hawker9000]

Anyone who says at any time that Russia looks sane and, by implication or explicitly, says the United States looks insane needs his head examined.

I guess I could copy you and either report this to the mods or just say that it is insulting, inflammatory yadda yadda yadda.

The least you could do, so as not to be completely hypocritical, would be to show the context of the statement - being that Russia looks the saner party simply because they are suggesting a path not strewn with countless dead - AGAIN - due to the US bombings.

Your response that Putin is a worse man because he'll be a bad host for the Olympics . .. well . . . even you must admit that's a bit sad.

Russia sold chemical weapons to Syria . . . the US sold chemical weapons to Sadaam to use against Iran. The US used napalm in Vietnam and Iraq and still have piles of the stuff.

Syria should not be another test site for US weaponry and ACCORDING TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD US bombings could have ramifications beyond what the myopic war-mongers can see

Putin supports Assad and they together have produced 100,000 dead civilians and millions of displaced Syrians as refugees in neighboring countries.

People who are determined to protect, save and preserve Putin and Assad together controlling Syria, along with Iran, have a point of view that is curious to say the least.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of arguments that protect, save and preserve the combined Middle East-Central Asian regime of Assad, Putin, Iran, not to mention Beijing.

One hundred thousand dead Syrian civilians and millions more live ones want Assad and his gang of butchers gone. That's step number one. Then deal with the next step, which is to support establishing a moderate Islamic government. That is doable and merits our focus and efforts.

Bombing Assad weakens his military capability. That is undeniable. That's a worthy and necessary step along the way to the final goal and purpose.

People who are determined to intervene militarily simply because of Assad's atrocities (which I actually believe are undeniable), have a simplistic and fatally unrealistic approach to the risks of escalation, not to mention abject failure, involved. It's not as simple as touching off a few missiles and hoping for the best. It's just absurd to claim that those who oppose a military intervention do so because they seek to "protect, save and preserve" [Assad, etc.]. It's not about what you, me, or even Obama "want". We ALL would dearly love to put an end the atrocities. It's about what we "can" do about, and what we "can expect" afterward... If you can't discuss the matter on that level, and are just going to simplemindedly accuse the opposition of wanting to support Assad, then you can't expect to be taken seriously.

[Robby nz]

Robby nz, on 08 Sept 2013 - 12:04, said:

Quote

Putin supports Assad and they together have produced 100,000 dead civilians and millions of displaced Syrians as refugees in neighboring countries.

People who are determined to protect, save and preserve Putin and Assad together controlling Syria, along with Iran, have a point of view that is curious to say the least.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of arguments that protect, save and preserve the combined Middle East-Central Asian regime of Assad, Putin, Iran, not to mention Beijing.

One hundred thousand dead Syrian civilians and millions more live ones want Assad and his gang of butchers gone. That's step number one. Then deal with the next step, which is to support establishing a moderate Islamic government. That is doable and merits our focus and efforts.

Bombing Assad weakens his military capability. That is undeniable. That's a worthy and necessary step along the way to the final goal and purpose.

Here we go again Publicus the only reason for any attack you have so far been able to produce through all your posts is Assad bad.

You appear to know how many deaths Assad has caused so :

Now tell me, Obama supports the rebels, how many dead have they left in their wake and how many more will be killed if the bombs and missiles start?

How many more Syrians will be forced to flee if the rebels take over?

I have read that where the rebels have taken over they have imposed Shiite law, do you think this is what the Syrian people want?

You go on about who is supporting Assad but who is supporting, arming and now we hear helping to train the rebels who we are told are also backed by Al-Qaeda?

Yes, the great US of A and you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with that.

How many of the 100k dead that you claim would still be alive if there had been no rebel uprising?

Of course US 'intervention' has been such a great success in the past hasn't it?

I see on a recent trip to Lao that there are still UN bomb disposal teams working to clear up the mess, from how many years ago is it now?

I remain highly suspicious of arguments that protect, save, preserve the Assad-Putin regime along with Iran, supported at the UN by Beijing.

Publicus. I Did not put forward any arguments I asked you simple questions which you choose not to answer as you did not answer similar questions I asked earlier in this topic.

I ask you these questions because you have been steadfast in supporting a missile strike on Syria which will only serve to kill more people.

Surely before you go out to remove any tyrant you should have a better alternative in mind for the people of the country.

[Publicus]

My god.

This is the third time I've posted this article to this thread. No one pays any attention to it because it's inconvenient to your attitudes and minset.

It's much easer instead to think of me only as a mad bomber rather than as someone who's examined the situation and problems and who is aware of an approach to take.

I reiterate, bombing Assad's defenses weakens his military capabilities and thus his regime. Weakening Assad's regime is a good thing to do towards the ends and means specified below.

You can agree or disagree with the efficacy of the approach and the end purpose, but whichever view you take still doesn't leave me as a mad bomber who has only bombs on the brain. Listen to yourselves.

Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria — And It's Starting To Work

Obama said as much on Tuesday: "We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground."

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

Read more: http://www.businessi...9#ixzz2dwEUEuTx

[Scott]

A lot of off-topic, inflammatory and trollish posts have been removed as well as replies. Stay on topic.

Warnings are being issued for some of the nonsensical comments.

[lomatopo]

"We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground," Mr Obama said on Tuesday as he met Congressional leaders at the White House.

Would it be asking too much to share this "broader strategy"? Or is it top secret?

He also addressed major concerns in Congress about the US engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East saying that his plan was "limited" and "proportional".

"It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," he said.

Uhm, thanks for telling us what your strategy is not, maybe you could share what it is?

“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry

Again, telling us what it is not. The fact that Kerry or Obama cannot articulate what it is they want to do, and what the planned outcome might be, only raises more questions.

On Tuesday, however, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, threw its support behind military action in Syria, citing the need to send a strong message to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, both of which support Mr. Assad.

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

[Jingthing]

...

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

As if that's a bad thing ...

[Publicus]

Anyone who says at any time that Russia looks sane and, by implication or explicitly, says the United States looks insane needs his head examined.

I guess I could copy you and either report this to the mods or just say that it is insulting, inflammatory yadda yadda yadda.

The least you could do, so as not to be completely hypocritical, would be to show the context of the statement - being that Russia looks the saner party simply because they are suggesting a path not strewn with countless dead - AGAIN - due to the US bombings.

Your response that Putin is a worse man because he'll be a bad host for the Olympics . .. well . . . even you must admit that's a bit sad.

Russia sold chemical weapons to Syria . . . the US sold chemical weapons to Sadaam to use against Iran. The US used napalm in Vietnam and Iraq and still have piles of the stuff.

Syria should not be another test site for US weaponry and ACCORDING TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD US bombings could have ramifications beyond what the myopic war-mongers can see

Putin supports Assad and they together have produced 100,000 dead civilians and millions of displaced Syrians as refugees in neighboring countries.

People who are determined to protect, save and preserve Putin and Assad together controlling Syria, along with Iran, have a point of view that is curious to say the least.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of arguments that protect, save and preserve the combined Middle East-Central Asian regime of Assad, Putin, Iran, not to mention Beijing.

One hundred thousand dead Syrian civilians and millions more live ones want Assad and his gang of butchers gone. That's step number one. Then deal with the next step, which is to support establishing a moderate Islamic government. That is doable and merits our focus and efforts.

Bombing Assad weakens his military capability. That is undeniable. That's a worthy and necessary step along the way to the final goal and purpose.

People who are determined to intervene militarily simply because of Assad's atrocities (which I actually believe are undeniable), have a simplistic and fatally unrealistic approach to the risks of escalation, not to mention abject failure, involved. It's not as simple as touching off a few missiles and hoping for the best. It's just absurd to claim that those who oppose a military intervention do so because they seek to "protect, save and preserve" [Assad, etc.]. It's not about what you, me, or even Obama "want". We ALL would dearly love to put an end the atrocities. It's about what we "can" do about, and what we "can expect" afterward... If you can't discuss the matter on that level, and are just going to simplemindedly accuse the opposition of wanting to support Assad, then you can't expect to be taken seriously.

I trust the analysis, evaluations, assessments of my government in this matter of intervention in the Syrian civil war.

In other words, if it were thought Iran, Russia or whomever would become seriously or extensively involved in a wider ME conflict because of the planned US strikes, Prez Obama would not be pursuing his plans to intervene in Syria.

It's the analysis and evaluations of the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA etc etc that U.S. military air strikes would not cause or result in a conflagration in the ME. This analysis and evaluation is also shared by the UK and France, among others.

There's always the possibility of an error of judgement. The Pentagon et al well know this and are planning to proceed with a high level of confidence in their judgement and the judgement of other governments and their militaries and intelligence services, to include those on the ground in the Middle East.

It's been proven in other conflicts that high confidence is justified in taking the precision air strikes approach, conducted on a standoff basis, i.e., from a distance. Predictions of massive civilian casualties are erroneous, as these precision weapons have over time and experience only become more accurate and precise.

You either accept that or you don't.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Publicus

[lomatopo]

Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence

The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the American public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.

In the absence of such evidence, Damascus and its ally Russia have aggressively pushed another scenario: that rebels carried out the Aug. 21 chemical attack. Neither has produced evidence for that case, either. That's left more questions than answers as the U.S. threatens a possible military strike.

Yet one week after Secretary of State John Kerry outlined the case against Assad, Americans — at least those without access to classified reports — haven't seen a shred of his proof.

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Lingering-doubts-over-Syria-gas-attack-evidence-4796441.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx_KD6FBXXM

John Forbes Kerry, how far you've fallen. I ashamed to say I've cast many votes for this man.

Edited September 8, 2013 by lomatopo

[lomatopo]

You either accept that or you don't.

Based on past performances, since oh 1954, I think any intelligent person would probably choose to not accept, "... the analysis, evaluations, assessments of my government in this matter of intervention in the Syrian civil war."

But I guess your point is that eventually, just by sheer dumb luck, we're bound to get something right at least once, at some point.

[pedro01]

...

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

As if that's a bad thing ...

Killing Syrians to send a message to Iran is nothing less than a war crime

[midas]

...

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

As if that's a bad thing ...

Which will be followed by Iranians killing Israelis to send a message to USA

[pedro01]

For those in favour of bombing Syria...

100000 Syrians have died in this civil war so far.

Now, 1400 have died as a result of chemical weapons and there is uproar.

So is it ok to kill Syrians with conventional weapons? Do you think the dead care how they were killed? Sure, maybe it takes longer for many of them to die this way but why the outrage now?

And why no outrage at the use of depleted uranium?

[simple1]

"We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground," Mr Obama said on Tuesday as he met Congressional leaders at the White House.

Would it be asking too much to share this "broader strategy"? Or is it top secret?

He also addressed major concerns in Congress about the US engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East saying that his plan was "limited" and "proportional".

"It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," he said.

Uhm, thanks for telling us what your strategy is not, maybe you could share what it is?

“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry

Again, telling us what it is not. The fact that Kerry or Obama cannot articulate what it is they want to do, and what the planned outcome might be, only raises more questions.

On Tuesday, however, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, threw its support behind military action in Syria, citing the need to send a strong message to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, both of which support Mr. Assad.

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

It's not PC to use the term regime change, but surely the US 'broader strategy" is to assist the Syrian Government in Exile to gain power and replace the Assad regime. The current leader of the opposition, who replaced the US sponsored leader, is Ahmad Assi al-Jarba who has close ties with Saudi Arabia, as well as the alleged capability of minimising Sunni inter-tribal conflict in Syria. With Saudi/US/NATO support you would assume to also have the political will to take on Al Qaeda forces in Syria. Their again will he be become just another Sunni dictator, supported by his personal tribal affiliation, with the ability to stablise Syria.

Having a Syrian Sunni government would support the generally recognised US regional goal of supporting Sunni governments who are, officially at least, anti Al Qaeda and to counter Iran & Shiite terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

A brief profile of al-Jarba at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23229258

Edited September 8, 2013 by simple1

[lomatopo]

It's not PC to use the term regime change, but surely the US 'broader strategy" is to assist the Syrian Government in Exile to gain power and replace the Assad regime. The current leader of the opposition, who replaced the US sponsored leader, is Ahmad Assi al-Jarba who has close ties with Saudi Arabia, as well as the alleged capability of minimising Sunni inter-tribal conflict in Syria. With Saudi/US/NATO support you would assume to also have the political will to take on Al Qaeda forces in Syria. Their again will he be become just another Sunni dictator, supported by his personal tribal affiliation, with the ability to stablise Syria.

If this is indeed the "broader strategy" it seems to require an almost perfect storm of events to have even have a remote chance of being successful, and I'm not sure what defines success? And it has the potential to become another debacle. And it will require boots on the ground. Maybe, this sponsored leader has the alleged capability, and political will, to become "our" dictator. Did we pick the right guy(s) after we executed Ngo Dinh Diem, and murdered 2 million Vietnamese, Laos and Cambodian people?

The very fact that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to articulate this strategy, assuming it is accurate, and instead resort to lies to justify a regime change, is disappointing, at best. And criminal, at worst.

Edited September 8, 2013 by lomatopo

[Sing_Sling]

its disturbing that the ruskies are still out of step with everyone else as usual ,name one time they were ever in step .

its in their DNA to always be at logger heads with everybody else .

Russians out of step with everyone else by being against US bombings? Where have you been hiding or what have you been reading?

So is France knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting its findings in Syria so it can buddy up to the United States and to President Obama?

Correct. You are very astute.

It appears, to me anyway, that M. Hollande is reluctant to launch an attack without a "coalition", of at least two countries, including France.

Apres vous.

There's no rational response to this flippant attitude.

And yet you reply with something 'constructive' yet again?

[Sing_Sling]

You either accept that or you don't.

Based on past performances, since oh 1954, I think any intelligent person would probably choose to not accept, "... the analysis, evaluations, assessments of my government in this matter of intervention in the Syrian civil war."

But I guess your point is that eventually, just by sheer dumb luck, we're bound to get something right at least once, at some point. alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20>

Blind trust is a good thing . . . really?

[boomerangutang]

Earlier, there was at least one post deriding the idea that the Obama officials were 'telegraphing' their intentions and strategy to the Assad regime, thereby enabling Assad to take a defensive posture, hide troops and equipment. A later post, also anti-Obama, lamented that Obama and Kerry are not telling everyone full details of their plans and/or offering up the intelligence gathered thus far.

It's like damned if they do reveal things, and damned if they don't.

Let's face it, it's not an easy job to be at the vanguard of penalizing regimes which use chemical weapons.

[pmugghc]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

Let's face it, it's not an easy job to be at the vanguard of penalizing regimes which use chemical weapons.

Especially after you ignored numerous chemical weapons offenses in the past as well as 100,000 deaths by conventional means.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[boomerangutang]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

[Jingthing]

I think it was wrong of Obama to set a "red line", now he's in a corner. If the US doesn't strike Syria, isn't it very likely Israel will strike Iran's nuke sites in the near future since they know "red lines" doesn't mean anything for the US?

No, not likely. Israel doesn't want to start a war.

True, but Israel doesn't want Iran to make any more progress on their nuke program either. Decisions, decisions ...

[F430murci]

The buzz in Russia is disconcerting. Putin says and apparently everyone believes that US and Bama are behind chemical attacks and that Bama is trying to start World War III. Putin makes fun of Bama and US saying Bama is scared, weak and a rookie.

What some here may view as democracy, Putin views as impotency and signals that he can pretty much do as he wishes and US is afraid and impotent politically to act.

Here is how Putin deals with anyone that defies him or publicly speaks out against him so a russians believe whatever they are told to believe.

-----

Protests ahead of Moscow vote as Putin critic Navalny surges in polls

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20352556-protests-ahead-of-moscow-vote-as-putin-critic-navalny-surges-in-polls?lite

Edited September 8, 2013 by F430murci

[lannarebirth]

"We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground," Mr Obama said on Tuesday as he met Congressional leaders at the White House.

It has often been said that "Americans don't get irony". I don't think that's true and I think even the average 6th grader can see through a statement like this by the person who backs the instigators of the civil war he says he means to bring to an end by prosecuting more war..

[lannarebirth]

"We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we've been seeing on the ground," Mr Obama said on Tuesday as he met Congressional leaders at the White House.

Would it be asking too much to share this "broader strategy"? Or is it top secret?

He also addressed major concerns in Congress about the US engaging in yet another conflict in the Middle East saying that his plan was "limited" and "proportional".

"It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan," he said.

Uhm, thanks for telling us what your strategy is not, maybe you could share what it is?

“This is not the time for armchair isolationism,” said Secretary of State John Kerry

Again, telling us what it is not. The fact that Kerry or Obama cannot articulate what it is they want to do, and what the planned outcome might be, only raises more questions.

On Tuesday, however, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, threw its support behind military action in Syria, citing the need to send a strong message to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, both of which support Mr. Assad.

Ah finally, the strategy in attacking Syria is to send a message to Iran.

It's not PC to use the term regime change, but surely the US 'broader strategy" is to assist the Syrian Government in Exile to gain power and replace the Assad regime. The current leader of the opposition, who replaced the US sponsored leader, is Ahmad Assi al-Jarba who has close ties with Saudi Arabia, as well as the alleged capability of minimising Sunni inter-tribal conflict in Syria. With Saudi/US/NATO support you would assume to also have the political will to take on Al Qaeda forces in Syria. Their again will he be become just another Sunni dictator, supported by his personal tribal affiliation, with the ability to stablise Syria.

Having a Syrian Sunni government would support the generally recognised US regional goal of supporting Sunni governments who are, officially at least, anti Al Qaeda and to counter Iran & Shiite terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

A brief profile of al-Jarba at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23229258

Of course there's a broader strategy. The reason no one talks about it is because it isn't an American strategy per se, it is an Israeli strategy which uses US military forces as it's instrument. It's pretty clearly laid out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

and you can see the events unfolding in Syria are pretty much the events that were INTENDED to unfold in Syria per the policy document.

The madmen (including Obama) who embrace and prosecute the policy have two sets of goals. For the Israelis it is to neutralize all ME states and help install governments with no axe to grind against Israelis. For the Americans it is to collect more client states that were previously Russian client states. Can't imagine why Obama hasn't made that clear at his numerous press conferences.