Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[giggles]

the russians have detected 2 missile launches in the eastern med directed towards syria ,not known who fired them and where they went .possible the yanks are testing the syrian radar systems to see if theyre capable

check the news ,nolinks from me as i dont want to get banned

Edited September 3, 2013 by giggles

[FDog]

France is particularly concerned, because Syria used to be a French possession. It's a bit like a parent still concerned about a wayward son, even though the son left home decades ago. It's part of the reason the Brits were particularly concerned about problems in Iraq. Similarly, for example, if there were dire problems in Laos, we wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese took particular interest.

France is not trying to win Brownie points with the US. French analysts are making judgments on evidence and their sense of doing what right. In this case; punishing a regime for using chemical weapons.

Then what are they waiting for?

[Jingthing]

the russians have detected 2 missile launches in the eastern med directed towards syria ,not known who fired them and where they went .possible the yanks are testing the syrian radar systems to see if theyre capable

check the news ,nolinks from me as i dont want to get banned

You must mean this:

In what looked an awful lot like show of military force, Israel and the United States conducted a joint missile test over the Mediterranean this morning, according to the Israeli Defense Ministry. The ministry said a medium-range Sparrow missile was launched shortly after 9 a.m. local time and was successfully detected and tracked by the Arrow missile defense system.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/03/u_s_israeli_missile_test_unnanounced_test_of_arrow_defense_system_caught.html

Edited September 3, 2013 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

the russians have detected 2 missile launches in the eastern med directed towards syria ,not known who fired them and where they went .possible the yanks are testing the syrian radar systems to see if theyre capable

check the news ,nolinks from me as i dont want to get banned

Wow the news cycle is slow in some parts of the world.

[F430murci]

It may all be academic now . . .

Speaker Boehner says he supports President Obama on Syria . . .

Probably more than a shot across the bow in the works to drum up support of McCain, Graham, Boehner et al.

Edited September 3, 2013 by F430murci

[JDGRUEN]

Seems the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff are concerned that a strike on Syria could trigger a wider regional conflict possibly bring in Iran and Russian assets...

Pentagon pushback: Joint Chiefs said to oppose Obama’s Syria strike order

"... Obama has encountered vigorous resistance from the military to his plans to attack Syria..."

The sources said the opposition within the military and the Defense Department has warned of retaliation by Iran and Syria against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East and Africa.

“The president has been told point blank that this could be the start of a military intervention that could take months or even a year until there is any resolution,” a source who has been following the debate said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/02/pentagon-pushback-joint-chiefs-said-to-oppose-obamas-syria-strike-order/

Edited September 3, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[Exsexyman]

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.

And you are very wrong, and cynical.

Of course people are cynical publicus, they would be very dull if they weren't. People are finally waking up, we have seen this scenario before, in Iraq. Our leaders rigged the evidence, lied about it and got caught out. Trust is the inevitable casualty, and cynicism is the inevitable result of that loss of trust. I'm afraid Obama, Kerry, Hollande etc just repeating over and over, "It was Assad what done it, we can't show you any independent evidence, you must trust us", just doesn't cut it any more. Especially when there is plenty of evidence of the Al Qaeda rebels in Syria possessing and using sarin gas. In any crime the first thing investigators ask is,'who had a motive?' There is only one answer to that question, given the timing of the attack, the 'rebels', who were suffering reverse upon reverse and were desperate for Western intervention to change this. Yet all this is studiously ignored by Western leaders, and sadly also by most of their stooges in the MSM. It just doesn't fit the agreed agenda. Does it not strike you as odd that after nearly a year the US administration can't get to the bottom of Benghazi, ( which did murder Americans), but after only a couple of weeks Obama and Kerry know with absolute certainty that the time has come to start dropping bombs on Syrians, who have never attacked the US? I know i do!

Opinion polls in the UK show that the general public are overwhelmingly against any Western attack on Syria, at least two thirds against. Reports from France suggest, if anything, the French public are even more overwhelmingly against. I don't know about the US, but i would guess that the majority are against. People are just tired of this seemingly constant need for the West to continuously get involved in wars,in the Middle East, and they don't trust and believe the motives given. At the weekend i was invited to a dinner party at a friend's house, there were about ten guests, two of whom were retired military officers, (UK). One was quite elderly, long retired, but who was an extremely senior officer in the RAF, not far short of the highest rank achievable. The other was quite a bit younger, a retired army officer, a colonel. I had not met either of them before. Inevitably the discussion turned to the events in Syria. it was very interesting to hear their opinions. Both of them agreed that there was enormous disquiet in the armed forces about the road they were being led down in Syria and the wider Middle East, not just amongst the lower ranks who are usually at the sharp end, but amongst the majority of senior officers as well. They have seen through the political rhetoric, and they just don't trust the political motives was the general gist of it. They were genuinely puzzled, and confused as to whose interests they were expected to fight for, and especially concerned about the pedigree of the rebels on the ground in Syria who the military would be expected to be supporting.

There are military websites where i have read postings from anonymous servicemen in Afghanistan saying much the same thing, but it was quite surprising to get it from 'the horse's mouth'. Here is a picture that was apparently posted on a military site, of course i am sure you will say it is a fake, and you may be right. But you may also be wrong. But whatever, it is very hard to disagree with the sentiments expressed, and in my opinion our leaders will ignore these sentiments at their peril.

https://securecdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/604/4703/original.jpg

[F430murci]

Seems the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff are concerned that a strike on Syria could trigger a wider regional conflict possibly bring in Iran and Russian assets...

Pentagon pushback: Joint Chiefs said to oppose Obamas Syria strike order

"... Obama has encountered vigorous resistance from the military to his plans to attack Syria..."

The sources said the opposition within the military and the Defense Department has warned of retaliation by Iran and Syria against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The president has been told point blank that this could be the start of a military intervention that could take months or even a year until there is any resolution, a source who has been following the debate said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/02/pentagon-pushback-joint-chiefs-said-to-oppose-obamas-syria-strike-order/

Interesting in that Dpsey seems to be in full support if a limited strike and is busy making a case for such right now.

is your article and news source using and taking statements about something other than what is currently planned out of context to create controversy and support an agenda?

[Jingthing]

Yeah the agenda of that outfit is anything Obama is for, we're against.

[F430murci]

Yeah the agenda of that outfit is anything Obama is for, we're against.

It gets real confusing also as some cite and quote paranoid conspiracy stuff so it gets difficulty to discern fantasy versus reality. So easy to take statements over time out of context.

[Chicog]

Yes, worldtribune is unattributed nonsense as usual.

[F430murci]

Funny how those with political aspirations for presidency in 2016 (Cruz and Rubilio) are so inclined to take a neutral position and to say the case needs to be made to and put to the population. I get that they are trying to protect their political future in 2016. If strike goes off without a hitch and accomplishes objectives, they will look weak for not backing. If strike fails and they back, that will be thrown in their face and they cannot not then say look at what those democrats did.

I get the future aspirations thing, but I find their pussiness offensive. Lives are at stake either way and it is their job to make tough decisions so make a decision one way or the other and stand behind it.

[JDGRUEN]

Seems the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff are concerned that a strike on Syria could trigger a wider regional conflict possibly bring in Iran and Russian assets...

Pentagon pushback: Joint Chiefs said to oppose Obamas Syria strike order

"... Obama has encountered vigorous resistance from the military to his plans to attack Syria..."

The sources said the opposition within the military and the Defense Department has warned of retaliation by Iran and Syria against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The president has been told point blank that this could be the start of a military intervention that could take months or even a year until there is any resolution, a source who has been following the debate said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/02/pentagon-pushback-joint-chiefs-said-to-oppose-obamas-syria-strike-order/

Interesting in that Dpsey seems to be in full support if a limited strike and is busy making a case for such right now.

is your article and news source using and taking statements about something other than what is currently planned out of context to create controversy and support an agenda?

In your opinion ... I am sure you have news sources - yes ...

Edited September 3, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[JetsetBkk]

John Kerry is dusting off Colin Powell's powerpoints from Feb. 5, 2003. Globally replace WMD with chemical weapons, Iraq with Syria and Saddam with Assad. Job done.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. - Colin Powell

Seriously, a lot of Congress-persons are up for re-election in 2014. Unless they can be bribed, or otherwise coerced, and without another compelling atrocity, any vote on a resolution will go down to defeat. Given our 3+ year presidential election cycle Obama's a lame-duck, already.

Just let Iran build the dam_n gas pipeline, and let Europe have a "green" energy supply, and let's be done with this.

Nail, hammer, head.

If the Islamic Pipeline gets built, it's going to hurt [the income of] a lot of countries - Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. Much better to destroy Syria on any pretence.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs&t=20m30s

The chemical weapons (CW) question is not settled. Obama, Kerry and co. talk about it as if they have hard proof that the Assad regime did it, but they don't. They merely say that Assad "must have done it" because no one else could have. So Al-Qaeda couldn't have done it? No, they're much too nice. But what a clever way to get the US to fight your war for you?

There are reports - I don't have a link - that Assad had CW in a location that was subsequently overrun by the rebels and Al-Qaeda.

Remember this? The plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs&t=07m38s

Watching Rand Paul and John Kerry on TV now. Kerry is getting upset and just keeps repeating that Assad killed his own people with chemical weapons, but he has given no proof. He's making a complete fool of himself.

[giggles]

uk opinion polls are just a small sample of 1000 and meaningless.

anti war protesters are very vocal ...

American snoopers know what you had for breakfast such it their total surveillance of all possibles

Edited September 3, 2013 by giggles

[JDGRUEN]

Budget problems could hinder the triggering of a regional war in the Eastern Mediterranean / Mid East...

Pentagon Can’t Afford Syria Operation, Must Seek “Additional Funds”

The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and must seek additional money from Congress, according to congressional aides.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/pentagon-cant-afford-syria-operation-must-seek-additional-funds/

[skippybangkok]

US is just a bully. If Russia or China used such weapons locally, I doubt they would be sending their war ships and rattling sabers

What about the 500k who died by machete in Rawanda, did not see any warships. I guess 500k dying by machetes is less significant than 1400 gassed.

[F430murci]

Seems the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff are concerned that a strike on Syria could trigger a wider regional conflict possibly bring in Iran and Russian assets...

Pentagon pushback: Joint Chiefs said to oppose Obamas Syria strike order

"... Obama has encountered vigorous resistance from the military to his plans to attack Syria..."

The sources said the opposition within the military and the Defense Department has warned of retaliation by Iran and Syria against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The president has been told point blank that this could be the start of a military intervention that could take months or even a year until there is any resolution, a source who has been following the debate said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/02/pentagon-pushback-joint-chiefs-said-to-oppose-obamas-syria-strike-order/

Interesting in that Dpsey seems to be in full support if a limited strike and is busy making a case for such right now.

is your article and news source using and taking statements about something other than what is currently planned out of context to create controversy and support an agenda?

In your opinion ... I am sure you have news sources - yes ...

Why not listen to testimony or review some actual real news sources about what was said during testimony. Not hard to find. Just type his name and the word "Syria."

I don't have time to sift through . . ., but these were the first ones that popped up.

"General Martin Dempsey testified Tuesday that the delay in launching air strikes in Syria is helping the Assad regime prepare. Josh Rogin reports from Capitol Hill."

"The meeting took place ahead of Tuesday’s committee hearing, where Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey will make the case for intervention in front of the members of Congress they need to persuade."

"Responding to questioning by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised the possibility of multiple waves of air strikes.

Commenting on military planning, Dempsey said: “I am confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade [syria's ability to use chemical weapons].

“It won’t surprise you to learn that we will have not only an initial target set but [also] subsequent target sets should they become necessary.

He said Assad “thinks of chemical weapons as just another weapon in his arsenal and that’s what makes this so very dangerous.”

"Russia may hike military assistance to Syria should the United States strike, the top U.S. military officer told Congress on Tuesday, adding, however, that was not a reason in his view to hesitate to act. "There is some indication that they (the Russians) have assured the regime that if we destroy something, they can replace it," General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Senate hearing."

[hawker9000]

John Kerry is dusting off Colin Powell's powerpoints from Feb. 5, 2003. Globally replace WMD with chemical weapons, Iraq with Syria and Saddam with Assad. Job done.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. - Colin Powell

Seriously, a lot of Congress-persons are up for re-election in 2014. Unless they can be bribed, or otherwise coerced, and without another compelling atrocity, any vote on a resolution will go down to defeat. Given our 3+ year presidential election cycle Obama's a lame-duck, already.

Just let Iran build the dam_n gas pipeline, and let Europe have a "green" energy supply, and let's be done with this.

Nail, hammer, head.

If the Islamic Pipeline gets built, it's going to hurt [the income of] a lot of countries - Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. Much better to destroy Syria on any pretence.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs&t=20m30s

The chemical weapons (CW) question is not settled. Obama, Kerry and co. talk about it as if they have hard proof that the Assad regime did it, but they don't. They merely say that Assad "must have done it" because no one else could have. So Al-Qaeda couldn't have done it? No, they're much too nice. But what a clever way to get the US to fight your war for you?

There are reports - I don't have a link - that Assad had CW in a location that was subsequently overrun by the rebels and Al-Qaeda.

Remember this? The plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdaExnIpGs&t=07m38s

Watching Rand Paul and John Kerry on TV now. Kerry is getting upset and just keeps repeating that Assad killed his own people with chemical weapons, but he has given no proof. He's making a complete fool of himself.

This may prove to be Obama's Achilles' Heel on this whole affair. The debate and doubt over whether or not the chemical attacks can be proven to have been launched by Assad, rather than the opposition, seems to be growing with time (which surprises me personally). I don't think Obama planned on that. And those murmuring about the UN inspection report aren't doing their homework: the purpose of that inspection was only to verify that the attacks WERE indeed chemical attacks, not who was responsible for them if they were. And that's not much in question. The team just collected samples from attack sites and are carrying them back for lab testing. Don't expect any verdict there WRT responsibility.

I find John Boehner's support for the strikes surprising - or at least a bit premature - in light of this growing disagreement, but voicing his support doesn't ensure he's actually going to whip it. If this particular argument gains too much momentum, not only will Obama probably not get his green light, but congressmen will have their good reason for not giving it, and we'll be back - rightly - to questions of Obama's own credibility.

[JDGRUEN]

The lack of International support - a non existent coalition could greatly complicate the thinking of Congress - Going it alone with only the tepid support from France will certainly be on the minds of members especially Democrats many of whom have condemed prior wars. Voting no would be a safe vote for Democrats with a lame duck president in office... so avoiding the risk of a wide war could prove easier that thought. This issue below will have to be paramount on the minds of Congress...

Let's see who is going to commit forces ... Britain No, Germany NO, Rest of Europe (less France) NO, South America NO, NATO NO, UN nothing so far - Likely No, Mid East NO... Then there is mounting protests from the Liberal/Left including OWS groups, Conservative protests... lots to think about ...

Obama’s Coalition of the Unwilling

(http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-coalition-of-the-unwilling/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e8d81a21b7-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-e8d81a21b7-156510342)

Edited September 3, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Seems the U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff are concerned that a strike on Syria could trigger a wider regional conflict possibly bring in Iran and Russian assets...

Pentagon pushback: Joint Chiefs said to oppose Obamas Syria strike order

"... Obama has encountered vigorous resistance from the military to his plans to attack Syria..."

The sources said the opposition within the military and the Defense Department has warned of retaliation by Iran and Syria against U.S. interests throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The president has been told point blank that this could be the start of a military intervention that could take months or even a year until there is any resolution, a source who has been following the debate said.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/09/02/pentagon-pushback-joint-chiefs-said-to-oppose-obamas-syria-strike-order/

Interesting in that Dpsey seems to be in full support if a limited strike and is busy making a case for such right now.

is your article and news source using and taking statements about something other than what is currently planned out of context to create controversy and support an agenda?

In your opinion ... I am sure you have news sources - yes ...

Why not listen to testimony or review some actual real news sources about what was said during testimony. Not hard to find. Just type his name and the word "Syria."

I don't have time to sift through . . ., but these were the first ones that popped up.

"General Martin Dempsey testified Tuesday that the delay in launching air strikes in Syria is helping the Assad regime prepare. Josh Rogin reports from Capitol Hill."

"The meeting took place ahead of Tuesday’s committee hearing, where Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey will make the case for intervention in front of the members of Congress they need to persuade."

"Responding to questioning by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised the possibility of multiple waves of air strikes.

Commenting on military planning, Dempsey said: “I am confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade [syria's ability to use chemical weapons].

“It won’t surprise you to learn that we will have not only an initial target set but [also] subsequent target sets should they become necessary.

He said Assad “thinks of chemical weapons as just another weapon in his arsenal and that’s what makes this so very dangerous.”

"Russia may hike military assistance to Syria should the United States strike, the top U.S. military officer told Congress on Tuesday, adding, however, that was not a reason in his view to hesitate to act. "There is some indication that they (the Russians) have assured the regime that if we destroy something, they can replace it," General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Senate hearing."

Thanks for the links ... this was last Tuesday - correct ?

[pastafarian]

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[Credo]

What people don't seem to quite get here, is that no body is talking about going to war. They are talking about air strikes for punishment of the use of chemical weapons.

It's not Iraq. It's not Libya. It's Syria.

[cloudhopper]

Great interview with some good background info on this war -

[hawker9000]

What people don't seem to quite get here, is that no body is talking about going to war. They are talking about air strikes for punishment of the use of chemical weapons.

It's not Iraq. It's not Libya. It's Syria.

And what others don't seem to get is that all wars start with something somewhere. An assassination here, a ship being sunk there, somebody starts shooting, somebody else shoots back... Shots across bows... Proxy hits proxy; sponsor attacks proxy; sponsor strikes sponsor... It's called danger of escalation. A few hundred HE warheads aimed at military targets following a war of words seems like much more than enough historically speaking. And in this day & age we have asymmetric cyber- and terror- retaliation (gee, now WHO do we know standing with Assad currently with expertise in terrorism - hmm?) to potentially have to deal with as well.

Of COURSE Obama's not "talking about it"! Duh. But Assad's been expectedly bellicose. 'Just a matter of time until Ahmadinejad chimes in - 'course HE'S been "talking war" for years. All he needs is opportunity...

'Might prove MUCH easier to have drawn a red line against the use of chemical weapons than one that will prevent escalation of a missile strike into another mid-East war. You do know that Syria shares a border with Israel, right? (One the two countries have fought quite viciously over before!)

[Scott]

A rather unpleasant and off-topic exchange has been deleted. Please stay on the topic.

I seem to have heard on CNN this morning that John Boehmer and McCain were supporting some type of punitive action against Syria. Did I hear wrong?

[Ulysses G.]

McCain has been for it all along. John Boehmer is more surprising. Obama might have more of a chance to win the vote now on striking Syria.

[JDGRUEN]

A rather unpleasant and off-topic exchange has been deleted. Please stay on the topic.

I seem to have heard on CNN this morning that John Boehmer and McCain were supporting some type of punitive action against Syria. Did I hear wrong?

From my readings Boehner, Cantor, McCain and Graham and of course Pelosi have made statements supporting obama... Conservatives are not pleased with this... But bottom line 'it ain't over 'til it's over' and that is a while away ... there is lots of grass roots resistance.