Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

The British newspaper the Daily telegraph reports:

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, aka AL QUAEDA (remember 9/11)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

Yeah, Syria is infested with all kinds of rats on both sides of the fight.

But it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

This actually is the second half of Prez Obama's original plan and strategy. The first element was to be the naval and air barrage designed to degrade Assad's brutal and vicious military forces fighting to defend the Assad regime which is armed, trained and aided by Putin and Russia. The August offensive by the moderate rebels, which will occur anyway, was to have followed the barrage.

Additionally, the CCP-PRC transferred US$300 million worth of arms to Syria between 2007 to 2010. Since June, the CCP-PRC, Russia, and Iran have violated US and EU sanctions by providing Assad's regime with US$500 million a month in oil and credit.

The honest resistance against Assad and his regime is being intensified in the face of greater support of his regime by Russia, Iran, the CCP-PRC.

U.S. Begins Shipping Arms for Syrian Rebels

CIA Aims to Vet and Train Fighters With New Weapons for Deployment by August; Saudi Antiaircraft Missiles Expected

The Central Intelligence Agency has begun moving weapons to Jordan from a network of secret warehouses and plans to start arming small groups of vetted Syrian rebels within a month, expanding U.S. support of moderate forces battling President Bashar al-Assad, according to diplomats and U.S. officials briefed on the plans.

The shipments, related training and a parallel push to mobilize arms deliveries from European and Arab allies are being timed to allow a concerted push by the rebels starting by early August, the diplomats and officials said, revealing details of a new covert plan authorized by President Barack Obama and disclosed earlier this month.

The agency plans to spend roughly two weeks more vetting an initial group of fighters and making sure they know how to use the weapons that they are given, clearing the way for the first U.S.-armed rebels to enter the fight, diplomats briefed on the CIA's plans said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html

Edited September 16, 2013 by Publicus

[Sing_Sling]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

The United States in 1917, in Prez Woodrow Wilson's brilliant words, entered the Great European War to "make the world safe for democracy." The consequence was that the US and its democratic allies Britain and France won World War I and the absolute monarchies of Europe collapsed.

Making the world safe for democracy, i.e., the United States and its always increasing number of democratic allies, has since been ongoing and shall continue to be the purpose of the United States. The process involves many aspects.

You resist this purpose. China has never had democracy, save for a blip under Sun Yat Sen. China hates democracy and is absolutely opposed to it. To the Chinese, democracy is a modern idea that contradicts the 2500 year old tradition of Chinese dictatorship.

Democracy is a Western idea that has already permeated Asia and most of the world. Many dictatorships remain and some US allies are dictatorships, which reflects the world of realpolitik and nothing more. The US works with what there is, seeks to change what it can change, accepts what it cannot yet change.

Now the world accepts the use of chemical warfare in Syria - against civilians. This shall not stand in the longer term because it endangers all of us, sooner or later. It makes the world safe for no one.

I have no idea what you are on about, but perhaps you should stick to the topic . . . the topic being Syria and military intervention by the US creating the potential of widening the conflict. Your one-trick pony show about China (hello, let's bring China into this again) and your bizarre assertion that I somehow oppose peace is not only childish but bizarre.

The topic: Regional War due to Western Intervention (Yet again Bombing a Muslim country)

Yes, it will/would.

[F430murci]

<<<snip>>>

The US stand on chemical weapons has been this: A policy of 'calculated ambiguity' warns of an “overwhelming and devastating” response in the event of CBW (chemical or biological weapons) being used against the United states or its allies.

<<<snip>>>.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html

The US has made clear that any attack against it using chemical or biological weapons will get a swift nuclear response.

This includes any such attack by terrorists wherever they may be. There are different sized nuclear warheads to include tactical that would be limited to a small area.

The US will not use chemical or biological weapons in warfare of any kind.

The US has destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons. Only 3000 tons remain of the original 31,500 tons that existed when Prez Richard Nixon renounced US use of chemical weapons towards the end of the Vietnam conflict. The US is completing construction and testing of new two chemical weapons destruction facilities which will be operational in 2015 and 2021 respectively. One is in the US west and the other is in the east.

Russia continues to have the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons, consisting of 44,000 tons. So it's no wonder that Assad's stockpile of 1000 tons and its recent use don't disturb Putin in the least.

Isn't it wonderful when the world's top cop threatens a country with obliteration if they don't bow to the demands of the US. Even if the US is the antagonist in the situation by funding the enemies of Syria and fabricating chemical weapons attacks to further the agenda of the US.

Fabricating what??? Dude, climb back under your rock.

-----

A United Nations report released Monday confirmed that rockets loaded with sarin gas were used in an August 21 attack in Syria, although inspectors stopped short of saying who was responsible for the attack.

“Chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale,” inspectors concluded in a 38-page report, which included analysis of chemical, environmental and medical samples.

Those samples provided “clear and convincing” evidence that rockets containing sarin were deployed in the area, the report said.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20524937-un-report-confirms-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria?lite

-----

While few have disputed that chemical weapons were used in the attack, the regime of Syria’s President Bashar Assad and opposition fighting against it have blamed each other for the use of the deadly gas. (Only those living under rocks, on conspiracy websites and Putin have disputed . . . Funny how those in Syria don't).

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20524937-un-report-confirms-chemical-weapons-use-in-syria?lite

Edited September 16, 2013 by F430murci

[Sing_Sling]

So no conclusive proof - the much-anticipated reason to let go of hellfire to cause more misery and bloodshed.

I thought this report was going to be conclusive . . .

Again, I wouldn't put it past Assad to using chemical weapons . . . and why this report can't pinpoint that he did, despite protestations to he contrary, is bizarre.

[SinglePot]

If all the Middle East wants is peace, as an earlier post said.....

The region has a remarkable track record, doesn't it.

The prognosis doesn't look took good either; with or without the US.

[F430murci]

So no conclusive proof - the much-anticipated reason to let go of hellfire to cause more misery and bloodshed.

I thought this report was going to be conclusive . . .

Again, I wouldn't put it past Assad to using chemical weapons . . . and why this report can't pinpoint that he did, despite protestations to he contrary, is bizarre.

That was not their job and they said that from the beginning. They have always maintained that their sole role was to determine what if any chemical weapon was used. If that was the case, why did you expect any different or why criticize? The UN human right investigation team led by Pinheiro is responsible for investigating who released the chemical weapons and Assad has denied them access to Syria.

[Sing_Sling]

So no conclusive proof - the much-anticipated reason to let go of hellfire to cause more misery and bloodshed.

I thought this report was going to be conclusive . . .

Again, I wouldn't put it past Assad to using chemical weapons . . . and why this report can't pinpoint that he did, despite protestations to he contrary, is bizarre.

That was not their job and they said that from the beginning. They have always maintained that their sole role was to determine what if any chemical weapon was used. If that was the case, why did you expect any different or why criticize? The UN human right investigation team led by Pinheiro is responsible for investigating who released the chemical weapons and Assad has denied them access to Syria.

I'm quite aware of that - so this leaves the US in the same position a before. All that sabre-rattling and Russian Smackdown . . .

Biden is still talking of bombing

I agree with the interesting point you raise, that savages can only be controlled by a more savage brutal dictator. Silly US for thinking people would enjoy being free and having choices. This is actually more of a negative reflection on those indiscriminately killing in Iraq than US who hoped and believed people would appreciate some level of freedom. Some messed up values some of you have and the sad part is you cannot even see it!

You really believe the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy and apple pie to the place?

Here's an interesting statistic from Bill Maher; since the chemical attack that killed 1000+ people in Syria there have been close to 2000 gun-related deaths in the USA. Messed up values indeed

So, bombing or not?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

Please stay on topic. Please keep your comments civil.

[Publicus]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

The United States in 1917, in Prez Woodrow Wilson's brilliant words, entered the Great European War to "make the world safe for democracy." The consequence was that the US and its democratic allies Britain and France won World War I and the absolute monarchies of Europe collapsed.

Making the world safe for democracy, i.e., the United States and its always increasing number of democratic allies, has since been ongoing and shall continue to be the purpose of the United States. The process involves many aspects.

You resist this purpose. China has never had democracy, save for a blip under Sun Yat Sen. China hates democracy and is absolutely opposed to it. To the Chinese, democracy is a modern idea that contradicts the 2500 year old tradition of Chinese dictatorship.

Democracy is a Western idea that has already permeated Asia and most of the world. Many dictatorships remain and some US allies are dictatorships, which reflects the world of realpolitik and nothing more. The US works with what there is, seeks to change what it can change, accepts what it cannot yet change.

Now the world accepts the use of chemical warfare in Syria - against civilians. This shall not stand in the longer term because it endangers all of us, sooner or later. It makes the world safe for no one.

I have no idea what you are on about, but perhaps you should stick to the topic . . . the topic being Syria and military intervention by the US creating the potential of widening the conflict. Your one-trick pony show about China (hello, let's bring China into this again) and your bizarre assertion that I somehow oppose peace is not only childish but bizarre.

The topic: Regional War due to Western Intervention (Yet again Bombing a Muslim country)

Yes, it will/would.

True, you haven't any idea.

[Publicus]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

You claim interference?!

Your last paragraph makes it sound like you're campaigning for president of the US. Why don't you keep your nose out of US domestic politics, policy, government?

Interference?!

Last year the UN General Assembly voted 137-12 to call on Assad to quit, to turn his government over to the vice president, and that a unity government be formed so the violence could be reduced of stopped.

The UN General Assembly consists of all the member states of the United Nations. It is the expressed vote of the world of nations, the international community. Russia and the CP-PRC were among the 12 governments that voted no.

The UNGA acted because only days earlier Russia and the CCP-PRC vetoed a resolution at the UN Security Council calling for the same thing. The interference here is by Russia and the CCP-PRC against the expressed will and wishes of the international community.

You need to get your head screwed on straight.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Publicus

[FDog]

A big thank you to Russia and China for opposing the vote. Good to see diplomacy at work and Putin trying to stop the terrorists taking over Syria.

Should be more people like him.

[FDog]

It was only a matter of time before Mr Anti Putin threw China into a topic about Syria. What a shock.

Are you completely ignorant of UN Security Voting patterns then?

No, I'm fully aware that the US won't vote with Russia even when they know it is the right thing to do.

[FDog]

29 pages on this thread. I would think that if people would just use their own words then post the LINK instead of posting the whole thing that it would only be about 10 pages.

[Publicus]

It is a grotesque folly to blame conflict on the oppressed and repressed population that reacts against a tyrant ruler.

It is absurd to try to deny Assad is a tyrant.

It is ridiculous to blame conflict on a people who are forced by a brutal military regime to take up arms against it after it has oppressed and repressed its population over an extended period of time.

The Arab Spring, which has gone through several cycles of evolution, and continues to do so, is sweeping across the Middle East. If one condemns the people of Syria for rising up against a tyrant ruler, then one must necessarily condemn all oppressed and repressed people everywhere for rising up in arms against their long time tyrant rulers.

Not all populations have had to rise up in arms against their long standing authoritarian elites who rule in one party states where there is no democratic alternative, or no viable democratic alternative, to their rule. However, many oligarchs who rule by cruelty have a massive and brutally violent repressive state apparatus in place to protect themselves against the people they rule.

Ruling authoritarians never at any time hesitate to use violence to repress their populations while enriching themselves and their cronies.

It is more than ironic to blame the repressed when they decide enough is enough and decide to confront their long time oppressor. It is a perverse inversion of logic and reasoning. The argument blaming the victim contradicts history. Moreover, the argument protects dictators and tyrants.

What a choice to make!

So once again your argument comes back to Assad bad ( something I or no one else denies) so therefore it is all right for a rebel group to rise against him in armed rebellion.

And because he chooses to attempt to put down that armed rebellion he is responsible for all the deaths, no responsibility on the rebels at all.

So what should he have done, rolled over and let them take over the country?

Had he done that would they be any better than him?

We read that where they have taken over they have imposed Sharia law, remember the girl who was given 100 lashes for pre-marital sex who was raped, (not in Syria) stoning women to death, part of Sharia law, right ? do you think that is what the Syrian people want ?

How many have been killed by the rebels or fled from them rather than Assad?

The people were living under Assad, tyrant or not, they were not running away before the rebels arrived on the scene.

I am not making choices only looking at things with both eyes and at the same time remembering what has happened when the US got 'involved' in the past.

It is only a small step in perception from the worlds self styled policeman to the worlds bully.

What should Assad have done in the face of the Syrian people in revolt and rebellion?

Assad should have complied with last year's resolution adopted by a 137-12 vote of the UN General Assembly to resign and turn his government over the the vice president so a unity government could have been attempted in order to stop the violence, or at the least to have significantly reduced the violence.

The UNGA vote of 137-12 for Assad to step down is the expressed vote of all the member states of the United Nations, i.e., the international community. It was necessitated because Russia and the CCP-PRC vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have advocated the same thing.

Among the 12 UNGA no votes were Russia and the CCP-PRC which have been funding Assad and his regime and arming it and supplying it.

I side with the long oppressed and repressed population of Syria in their armed insurrection against the tyrant Assad and his murdering self-serving minority regime.

I side with the international community of nations in opposition to the continuation of the illegitimate Assad regime.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Publicus

[boomerangutang]

A big thank you to Russia and China for opposing the vote. Good to see diplomacy at work and Putin trying to stop the terrorists taking over Syria. Should be more people like him.

It's doubtful you'd be be espousing that view if your 11 yr old boy was one of the kids tortured by Assad's troops. Sounds like you're among the "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know" group.

It was only a matter of time before Mr Anti Putin threw China into a topic about Syria. What a shock.

Are you completely ignorant of UN Security Voting patterns then?

No, I'm fully aware that the US won't vote with Russia even when they know it is the right thing to do.

Have you followed the news for the past few days? US and Russia are cooperating. China is out of the picture. I know why, but won't elaborate here, as it may be considered off-topic.

Edited September 17, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Sing_Sling]

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

The United States in 1917, in Prez Woodrow Wilson's brilliant words, entered the Great European War to "make the world safe for democracy." The consequence was that the US and its democratic allies Britain and France won World War I and the absolute monarchies of Europe collapsed.

Making the world safe for democracy, i.e., the United States and its always increasing number of democratic allies, has since been ongoing and shall continue to be the purpose of the United States. The process involves many aspects.

You resist this purpose. China has never had democracy, save for a blip under Sun Yat Sen. China hates democracy and is absolutely opposed to it. To the Chinese, democracy is a modern idea that contradicts the 2500 year old tradition of Chinese dictatorship.

Democracy is a Western idea that has already permeated Asia and most of the world. Many dictatorships remain and some US allies are dictatorships, which reflects the world of realpolitik and nothing more. The US works with what there is, seeks to change what it can change, accepts what it cannot yet change.

Now the world accepts the use of chemical warfare in Syria - against civilians. This shall not stand in the longer term because it endangers all of us, sooner or later. It makes the world safe for no one.

I have no idea what you are on about, but perhaps you should stick to the topic . . . the topic being Syria and military intervention by the US creating the potential of widening the conflict. Your one-trick pony show about China (hello, let's bring China into this again) and your bizarre assertion that I somehow oppose peace is not only childish but bizarre.

The topic: Regional War due to Western Intervention (Yet again Bombing a Muslim country)

Yes, it will/would.

True, you haven't any idea.

Oh dear . . . simplistic personal attacks is all you have left? Not to worry, I won't report you nor cry openly to the mods as is your wont . . .

You used to be able to put forward your point without filling half a page with waffle and/or insulting other posters with cheap and uneducated one-liners.

Jingoism is not the answer here, neither for a debate nor for the solution to the problem . . . and Putin and now China are showing themselves to be (for their own political points-scoring of course) the moderates in this Spiel

[Chicog]

Only an idiot would call it "moderation" when essentially they are letting Assad get away with genocide.

[Publicus]

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

The United States in 1917, in Prez Woodrow Wilson's brilliant words, entered the Great European War to "make the world safe for democracy." The consequence was that the US and its democratic allies Britain and France won World War I and the absolute monarchies of Europe collapsed.

Making the world safe for democracy, i.e., the United States and its always increasing number of democratic allies, has since been ongoing and shall continue to be the purpose of the United States. The process involves many aspects.

You resist this purpose. China has never had democracy, save for a blip under Sun Yat Sen. China hates democracy and is absolutely opposed to it. To the Chinese, democracy is a modern idea that contradicts the 2500 year old tradition of Chinese dictatorship.

Democracy is a Western idea that has already permeated Asia and most of the world. Many dictatorships remain and some US allies are dictatorships, which reflects the world of realpolitik and nothing more. The US works with what there is, seeks to change what it can change, accepts what it cannot yet change.

Now the world accepts the use of chemical warfare in Syria - against civilians. This shall not stand in the longer term because it endangers all of us, sooner or later. It makes the world safe for no one.

I have no idea what you are on about, but perhaps you should stick to the topic . . . the topic being Syria and military intervention by the US creating the potential of widening the conflict. Your one-trick pony show about China (hello, let's bring China into this again) and your bizarre assertion that I somehow oppose peace is not only childish but bizarre.

The topic: Regional War due to Western Intervention (Yet again Bombing a Muslim country)

Yes, it will/would.

True, you haven't any idea.

Oh dear . . . simplistic personal attacks is all you have left? Not to worry, I won't report you nor cry openly to the mods as is your wont . . .

You used to be able to put forward your point without filling half a page with waffle and/or insulting other posters with cheap and uneducated one-liners.

Jingoism is not the answer here, neither for a debate nor for the solution to the problem . . . and Putin and now China are showing themselves to be (for their own political points-scoring of course) the moderates in this Spiel

You said you hadn't any idea.

I confirmed the fact.

Now you whinge.

And I did not make the post above you attribute to me of 16 September - 22:23. Lawrence Chee made the post. In fact, you have combined into the one post of 16 September - 22:23 the post of Lawrence Chee and my post which is in reponse to Mr Chee. I just want the record to be clear on this.

Another time another poster deliberately altered a post I'd made when he (mis)quoted me in his subsequent post, which is the kind of thing I report to Mods/Admin because it specifically violates the Rules. Your post above reflects a technical problem with which a number of us have had experience so no action is called for by me other than to point out the unfortunate fact.

To reiterate the purpose of this post, you said you hadn't any idea, which I confirmed to be fact which then caused you to winge.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Publicus

[LawrenceChee]

Anyone that has served in the military will know you don't tell the enemy the strike rate ...by announcing its a limited strike ...Assad and his military commanders have hidden their assets and probably decided to hunker it down and take it for a few days

What would it achieve besides a refugee crisis that will burden it's neighbors and also spark a regional boldness among the youths to start trouble whenever they want it

Have a look at Egypt ... They threw a dictator ...got a voted govt and threw him out after a year as they think he is a dictator too..be years before they ever have any stability

In the meantime, tourist dollars fail and the economy stalls and the average joe suffers

I was in Egypt last year and the desperation of the tourist workers was so evident ...they will not let you go unless you buy even the smallest souvenir as it will feed the family for the day.

My clients were offered hotels at bargain rock bottom prices and even they don't have the stomach for it as they know it will not be any stability for years to come.

[Publicus]

Anyone that has served in the military will know you don't tell the enemy the strike rate ...by announcing its a limited strike ...Assad and his military commanders have hidden their assets and probably decided to hunker it down and take it for a few days

What would it achieve besides a refugee crisis that will burden it's neighbors and also spark a regional boldness among the youths to start trouble whenever they want it

Have a look at Egypt ... They threw a dictator ...got a voted govt and threw him out after a year as they think he is a dictator too..be years before they ever have any stability

In the meantime, tourist dollars fail and the economy stalls and the average joe suffers

I was in Egypt last year and the desperation of the tourist workers was so evident ...they will not let you go unless you buy even the smallest souvenir as it will feed the family for the day.

My clients were offered hotels at bargain rock bottom prices and even they don't have the stomach for it as they know it will not be any stability for years to come.

Anyone who has served in a proper military knows war is too important to be left to the generals.

The planned military strikes of Prez Obama against Syria included strikes against the Islamic extremist forces trapped along the eastern steppes of Syria and whose encampments also border on the eastern desert. The radical Islamist fighters are still encamped there because they have nowhere else to go or to hide. They are sitting ducks, all 20,000 of them. That's what's called a target rich zone.

The rest of your post is redundant or irrelevant. There already are 2 million Syrian refugees and 110,000 killed, to include 40,000 civilians, many of whom were children, all of whom were killed by Assad's military forces to include the firebombing of schools.

The situation and circumstance of Egypt does not apply to or in Syria. Syria hasn't seen any tourists for more than two years now, to include yourself as a merchant of tourism and travel. And I don't know what you were thinking to try to get tourists into a hot spot such as Egypt to begin with. What, are you trying now to get people into Syria on a special low fare "Combat Tour" so you can make a buck on the situation? Izzat your complaint?

[LawrenceChee]

Target rich zone ? It's this trigger happy mentality that has no deeper thinking that gets people worried. Generals don't provide jobs, social security and the urban planning.

The Syrians don't care if its Assad, Prasad or Trasad as long as they have a stable government that can provide jobs, livelihood and a good standard of living.

I am afraid the international community knows that the alternative presented by the rebels is hardly an option and yet keeping Assad in power is hard.

Bombing is a short term solution, who is going to provide jobs and repair the damaged roads, schools and buildings is another. No Syrian will ever agree to the bombings.

Egypt like Syria has rich tourist and historical sights that can provide jobs and livelihood in the service sector and its ancillary services such as transport, restaurants etc.

Like Myanmar it provides a real quick solution to people needing jobs in new economy.

Myanmar was not bombed even with the junta doings and provides a real glimpse of hope when one is patient with reforms.

The Syrians look at Iraq and Myanmar and know which option works better for them.

Bombing is a fools option.

[Publicus]

Target rich zone ? It's this trigger happy mentality that has no deeper thinking that gets people worried. Generals don't provide jobs, social security and the urban planning.

The Syrians don't care if its Assad, Prasad or Trasad as long as they have a stable government that can provide jobs, livelihood and a good standard of living.

I am afraid the international community knows that the alternative presented by the rebels is hardly an option and yet keeping Assad in power is hard.

Bombing is a short term solution, who is going to provide jobs and repair the damaged roads, schools and buildings is another. No Syrian will ever agree to the bombings.

Egypt like Syria has rich tourist and historical sights that can provide jobs and livelihood in the service sector and its ancillary services such as transport, restaurants etc.

Like Myanmar it provides a real quick solution to people needing jobs in new economy.

Myanmar was not bombed even with the junta doings and provides a real glimpse of hope when one is patient with reforms.

The Syrians look at Iraq and Myanmar and know which option works better for them.

Bombing is a fools option.

Um, you wanna talk about if a person has served in the military, so I mentioned generals, war and a "target rich zone" (the word "environment" also is used in addition to "zone"). You raised the subject, I developed it in the present situation and circumstance in Syria.

Your talk of providing jobs in Syria at the present time, repairing damaged roads, schools and buildings is not realistic given that a civil war is raging that has no end in sight to it. What are you going on about with this kind of talk? Prez Obama's aborted bombing campaign wasn't going to be disturbing any existing or planned national reconstruction projects, because there aren't any. The bombing was to have focused on carefully chosen targets, specifically, Assad's military forces and Islamic extremist groups that are concentrated in the eastern region of Syria.

As to your meanderings about Myanmar, the United States successfully pressured Myanmar in non-military ways. Those ways were suitable to the situation and circumstances specific to Myanmar.

The United States twice organized Buddhist monks in Myanmar to protest the military regime in what cleverly was called the Saffron Revolution, named after the color of the robes worn by Buddhist monks.

The Saffron Revolution was a US State Department and CIA-backed destabilization that began in 2007. Its purpose was to focus global attention on the Myanmar military dictatorship’s human rights abuses. The US's destabilization campaign was conducted to further isolate Myanmar internationally from all economic relations except for those with the CCP-PRC. .

India supported the Saffron Revolution and so conducted quiet international lobbying for the US program to destabilize the Myanmar military rulers.

Due to the Myanmar's brutal suppression of the Saffron Revolution on two occasions, both the US and Western governments further tightened existing sanctions, putting a severe squeeze on Yangoon's military rulers.

The US thus forced Burma’s military leaders into a tighter dependency on Beijing, which proved to be too much for even the Myanmar military to sustain. Consequently, the Myanmar military rulers were compelled to turn to the West lest they lose effective control of the country to Beijing.

Myanmar's military rulers thus were forced in to declaring that the tightening of US economic and concomitant Western sanctions had done the country great harm. President Thein Sein then made his major liberalization opening, as well as allowing US-backed Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, to be free and to run for elective office with her party. In return, the military rulers of Myanmar received promises from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of US investment in the country and now are experiencing the beginning of the easing of US economic sanctions, followed by a gradual easing of Western economic sanctions.

The strategy was so successful and definitive that Prez Obama last year made a one day visit to Myanmar, to meet with Prez Thein and to speak at Yangoon University. Prez Obama made his Myanmar visit during a two state SE Asia trip that began in Thailand, which is a US treaty ally and which also supported the US initiated Saffron Revolution and the real purposes of the courageous and selfless Buddhist monks of Myanmar.

The US campaign to twice unleash Myanmar's Buddhist monks against the military regime thus paid dividends without the US ever firing a shot or dropping a bomb.

The US is a lot smarter and more subtle than you could possibly conceive of or recognize. Specifically, you don't know the US policy that what is good for Syria was not appropriate or effective in reversing the oppression and repression in Myanmar and in reversing Beijing's sucking of Myanmar into becoming a tributary state of Beijing.

The bottom line in all of this is that while subtlety was appropriate to Myanmar, bombing is the approach against tyrants such as Assad and his murdering regime in the Middle East.

So who's the know nothing fool in all of this?

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

So who's the know nothing fool in all of this?

If you're going to quote or précis large chunks of other web sites, shouldn't you at least give some acknowledgement to the original author, F. William Engdahl?

Now, what were you saying about "know nothing fools"?

[Scott]

Although some of the examples, such as Myanmar, are interesting, let's try to stick a little closer to Syria.

[rijb]

Still doubt Assad’s forces were behind Syria’s chemical attack? Look at this map.

[Scott]

An inflammatory and off-topic post has been deleted.

You will now stay on the topic of Syria.

Off-topic discussions are over.

[Scott]

Inflammatory, off-topic posts deleted. Continued off-topic posting will result in warnings and suspensions.

[Scott]

Inflammatory, off-topic posts deleted. Continued off-topic posting will result in warnings and suspensions.

[Publicus]

Still doubt Assad’s forces were behind Syria’s chemical attack? Look at this map.

Indeed, the claims of Assad and Putin of rebel culpability in the chemical warfare attacks now couldn't even make it into science fiction.

Assad is as guilty as sin. And Putin 100% endorses and supports sin.

[hawker9000]

Still doubt Assads forces were behind Syrias chemical attack? Look at this map.

Indeed, the claims of Assad and Putin of rebel culpability in the chemical warfare attacks now couldn't even make it into science fiction.

Assad is as guilty as sin. And Putin 100% endorses and supports sin.

Was that ever in question (except perhaps by an inconsequential few)? Even if he WEREN'T guilty of the chemical attacks, would his stink really be that much less? The question is, why should western powers get involved and mired in the bog of competing gangs when other countries in the region aren't inclined to step in? Whatever the outcome, it's sure to be negative, and as outsiders we're sure to be hated and condemned for it. There's no percentage here in once again playing the cop.