Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

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.

There already are governments of the region involved in Syria, namely Saudi Arabia, Jordan and some Gulf states.

There is some overlap of governments of the region that are directly involved supporting moderate rebels and governments that have accepted the massive burden of large numbers of Syrian refugees. Most regional governments that have accepted Syrian refugees however are not militarily involved.

However, the more the governments of the region become involved militarily, the greater is the possibility - indeed, the probability - that a regional war would erupt. You've referred to the Sunni - Shia divide in the region (most notably as discussed in the recent Rand report). That divide would play unfavorably if a lot of governments of the region become directly involved militarily.

This actually is better left to outsiders to intervene, then get out, leaving behind a successful venture. I'd say the governments of the region prefer this approach.

Putin is an involved outsider, however, he's involved on the wrong side which has alienated him from many governments and peoples of the region. Putin's problem is that he's not going away anytime soon, so his presence there, which is already largely unwelcome, will have even greater diminishing utility to him as more time passes and more negative events transpire.

The US and France militarily stepping in then immediately stepping out would be much more welcome than either Putin's long term involvement or the military involvement of more governments of the region which already have their inherent and serious differences.

[boomerangutang]

The US and France militarily stepping in then immediately stepping out would be much more welcome than either Putin's long term involvement or the military involvement of more governments of the region which already have their inherent and serious differences.

I can see the sense in having powerful outsiders exert force. However, when the precedent of recent armed conflicts in the M.East are looked at, they're like tar pits. Easy to get in to, a tough struggle to get out of. Though, having said that, I realize the first Gulf War looked like an exception on its surface, - though in the bigger perspective, the US and its friends went back a few years later, and are still involved years later. Libya was a quick-in, quick-out scenario also, so maybe your suggestion has its validity.

[SinglePot]

I'd favour a quick in and out.

Eliminate Assad and then, if Syria still wants to fight amongst themselves, leave them to it.

Only with the support of the International Community of course. Wouldn't want the Obama administration getting any heat for doing something useful would we.

[Scott]

I believe that this morning on the radio news, while driving, they were reporting that the Syrian Free Army were fighting a jihadist group affiliated with AQ.

[boomerangutang]

Two dogs fighting or one big dog with many smaller dogs attacking it.

Either way, throw a few pails of water on them, then stand clear. That's about all you can do.

[LawrenceChee]

Assad has mentioned this morning that it will take a year to remove these weapons and also asked if the USA government would want these weapons.

They have volunteered to give them to the west if they pay for the logistic of removing them and destroying them.

Now we will see if the west has the money to make their promises good in trying to stabilize the region and removing the weapons.

Would cost the west billions and he has also made mention of the west trying to meddle in the governance of Syria. He may be a bad ass but so far he is playing his politics right.

Let his own people overthrow him if they don't want him without the west interference.

However there is no suitable replacement in sight that will not be defined as factional in the middle eastern eyes or not extremist by western standards.

[Sing_Sling]

Two dogs fighting or one big dog with many smaller dogs attacking it.

Either way, throw a few pails of water on them, then stand clear. That's about all you can do.

What fun was had on 9/11 . . . those guys just threw a pail of water on the WTC.

Assad has mentioned this morning that it will take a year to remove these weapons and also asked if the USA government would want these weapons.

They have volunteered to give them to the west if they pay for the logistic of removing them and destroying them.

Now we will see if the west has the money to make their promises good in trying to stabilize the region and removing the weapons.

Would cost the west billions and he has also made mention of the west trying to meddle in the governance of Syria. He may be a bad ass but so far he is playing his politics right.

Let his own people overthrow him if they don't want him without the west interference.

However there is no suitable replacement in sight that will not be defined as factional in the middle eastern eyes or not extremist by western standards.

You clearly don't understand ME politics. The West (read the US and France) has the right, nay the duty to facilitate regime change as it works well - to wit Iran and Iraq, just to name some neighbours.

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

[Chicog]

Let his own people overthrow him if they don't want him without the west interference.

His own people can't overthrow him, since he's bombarding them with weapons from Iran and Russia.

[simple1]

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria/gkh4

There has been commentary of the potential development of a Shiite axis i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq countering the US/NATO supported Sunni regimes. This may be far fetched as regimes have tried to establish workable alliances such as Syria/Egypt but fell over due to conflicting nationalistic agendas. But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria, so there could be an actual shift to a Russian supported Shiite triangle to resist Israeli/US/NATO regional influence. Also co-operate to destroy Al Qaeda aligned forces.

In summary I believe it is a mistake to take a position that the Syrians should fight it out amongst themselves as the West could be setting up for an even more painful future; as some commentators have said a return to Cold War politics and proxy wars

Edited September 19, 2013 by simple1

[Sing_Sling]

But then you have Australians saying that NZ is a state of ours as well . . . . . . and no-one takes that seriously.

We tend to give too much credibility to the wrong people making the wrong statements and less so when the right people say the wrong things . . . kind of like the reporting we see with the usual frothing-at-the-mouth, bearded, turban-wearing, US-flag-burning, ululating cretins . . . which puts 99% of Muslims in the same boat by proxy.

I don't have a huge problem with intervention for the right reasons at the right time, but where were 'we' during the genocide in Cambodia, Burundi, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Somalia (I'm talking a massive effort, not a half-hearted one) etc . . . it seems the targets are mainly Arabs and Muslims . . . and if I see it that way, imagine what Arabs and/or Muslims in general see.

East Timor? Why wait so long until we finally decided to meekly send troops . . . only after Jakarta allowed us to . . . Irian Jaya - till nothing while genocide continues . . . the list goes on.

I have lost my belief that 'we' - as in the west - do he right thing because 'someone has to do it' and cannot, therefore, accept that Syria is now the next bombing target simply because the leader has - though not proven, though probable - killed 1000+ of his own people with chemical weapons - - - meanwhile 'we' just sat there while 100.000+ died in the last few years.

This chemical weapons ruse is just that, a ruse. If we were to get so upset and charge people with war crimes or demand their stepping down from power wouldn't several US presidents, UK PMs etc.. also be in jail? Forced to resign?

Vietnam and napalm, among other things? Clearly a violation and yet there are still massive stockpiles of the stuff in the US . . .

The US civil war . . . Abraham Lincoln should have been deposed because he was leading the nation when the 'rebels wanted to oust him and declare their own territory.

Doesn't sound right, but to follow logical steps . . .

Edited September 19, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[Publicus]

But then you have Australians saying that NZ is a state of ours as well . . . . . . and no-one takes that seriously.

We tend to give too much credibility to the wrong people making the wrong statements and less so when the right people say the wrong things . . . kind of like the reporting we see with the usual frothing-at-the-mouth, bearded, turban-wearing, US-flag-burning, ululating cretins . . . which puts 99% of Muslims in the same boat by proxy.

I don't have a huge problem with intervention for the right reasons at the right time, but where were 'we' during the genocide in Cambodia, Burundi, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Somalia (I'm talking a massive effort, not a half-hearted one) etc . . . it seems the targets are mainly Arabs and Muslims . . . and if I see it that way, imagine what Arabs and/or Muslims in general see.

East Timor? Why wait so long until we finally decided to meekly send troops . . . only after Jakarta allowed us to . . . Irian Jaya - till nothing while genocide continues . . . the list goes on.

I have lost my belief that 'we' - as in the west - do he right thing because 'someone has to do it' and cannot, therefore, accept that Syria is now the next bombing target simply because the leader has - though not proven, though probable - killed 1000+ of his own people with chemical weapons - - - meanwhile 'we' just sat there while 100.000+ died in the last few years.

This chemical weapons ruse is just that, a ruse. If we were to get so upset and charge people with war crimes or demand their stepping down from power wouldn't several US presidents, UK PMs etc.. also be in jail? Forced to resign?

Vietnam and napalm, among other things? Clearly a violation and yet there are still massive stockpiles of the stuff in the US . . .

The US civil war . . . Abraham Lincoln should have been deposed because he was leading the nation when the 'rebels wanted to oust him and declare their own territory.

Doesn't sound right, but to follow logical steps . . .

Logic doesn't necessarily yield the accurate or realistic conclusions or solutions.

I think you know that, so I don't know why you'd be appealing to logic exclusively.

Also, if Assad didn't use chemical weapons against his own population - and he of course did use them in that way - then why is Putin proposing that Assad surrender his chemical weapons? If Assad didn't use them, as both Assad and Putin continue to assert, then why are Assad and Putin willing to surrender them?

Assad and Putin are as guilty as sin, and they are boldfaced and shameless liars who blatantly contradict themselves in plainly obvious ways.

They can talk to their own populations as inferior idiots, but that kind of talk doesn't succeed when talking to the international community. People in other cultures that are developed or advanced see right through the two rats.

[FDog]

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.

Well since Obama has not gone in to stop it all and actually agrees with Putin is he too guilty as sin?

As Obama has agreed to the Putin option it would seem from what you say that he is indeed a very weak leader as he has done nothing to stop it all.

Obama is very lucky he has a man like Putin around to steer him in the right direction.

[Publicus]

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria/gkh4

There has been commentary of the potential development of a Shiite axis i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq countering the US/NATO supported Sunni regimes. This may be far fetched as regimes have tried to establish workable alliances such as Syria/Egypt but fell over due to conflicting nationalistic agendas. But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria, so there could be an actual shift to a Russian supported Shiite triangle to resist Israeli/US/NATO regional influence. Also co-operate to destroy Al Qaeda aligned forces.

In summary I believe it is a mistake to take a position that the Syrians should fight it out amongst themselves as the West could be setting up for an even more painful future; as some commentators have said a return to Cold War politics and proxy wars

In both Iraq wars the US air forces went through the Russian designed and made anti aircraft and anti missile defenses like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

I can't think of any good reason why any ME government should have any confidence in either Russian or CCP-PRC air defense systems now or in the future. Yet Syria does have both Russian and some CCP-PRC made air defense systems.

It sort of reminds me of the infamous French "Imaginez" line of World War 2.

And it looks like the new president recently elected in Iran wants to do some kissing and making up, although to what extent is not yet clear. But he did send a Happy Hanukkah message to Israel - yes, he actually did do that. So something's afoot.

[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.

Well since Obama has not gone in to stop it all and actually agrees with Putin is he too guilty as sin?

As Obama has agreed to the Putin option it would seem from what you say that he is indeed a very weak leader as he has done nothing to stop it all.

Obama is very lucky he has a man like Putin around to steer him in the right direction.

Somebody's all mixed up.

So here's another try.

Putin denies Assad used chemical weapons against Assad's own civilian population, yet Putin and Assad offer to surrender the chemical weapons arsenal.

Prez Obama and the world know Putin and Assad are lying when they deny Assad used his chemical weapons arsenal against his own people, who in fact aren't his own people any more and haven't been his own people for a long time.

Prez Obama and the West accept Putin's offer, which Assad accepts (ahem) to surrender Assad's chemical weapons arsenal.

If Assad didn't use his chemical weapons arsenal against the civilian population, why are Putin and Assad so willing to surrender the chemical weapons arsenal, to allow it to be destroyed?

Putin and Assad look like the idiots they are.

[Sing_Sling]

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.

Well since Obama has not gone in to stop it all and actually agrees with Putin is he too guilty as sin?

As Obama has agreed to the Putin option it would seem from what you say that he is indeed a very weak leader as he has done nothing to stop it all.

Obama is very lucky he has a man like Putin around to steer him in the right direction.

Somebody's all mixed up.

So here's another try.

Putin denies Assad used chemical weapons against Assad's own civilian population, yet Putin and Assad offer to surrender the chemical weapons arsenal.

Prez Obama and the world know Putin and Assad are lying when they deny Assad used his chemical weapons arsenal against his own people, who in fact aren't his own people any more and haven't been his own people for a long time.

Prez Obama and the West accept Putin's offer, which Assad accepts (ahem) to surrender Assad's chemical weapons arsenal.

If Assad didn't use his chemical weapons arsenal against the civilian population, why are Putin and Assad so willing to surrender the chemical weapons arsenal, to allow it to be destroyed?

Putin and Assad look like the idiots they are.

Yes, someone is all mixed up.

So, here's another try.

Having the chemical weapons doesn't mean using them - take the US example of using napalm in massive quantities in Vietnam among other countries, but not using nuclear weapons - even though they had/have them. Added to which, there are reports that the rebels actually used them . . . so, who are we to believe? The same folks who gave us WMDs in Iraq and Bin Laden in Afghanistan or some US-supported rebels who wrench out their enemies' hearts and eat them?

Prez Obama and 'the West' accepted Putin's offer - because EVERYONE did, because it made sense, because it was an good alternative to bombing yet more civilians into oblivion from the safety of an air-conditioned military facility in Nevada somewhere, quaffing Mountain Dew and munching on Twinkies.

You are severely wrong and fairly well alone in your belief that Putin and Assad look stupid in this particular instance.

Mixed up, indeed . . .

[simple1]

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria/gkh4

There has been commentary of the potential development of a Shiite axis i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq countering the US/NATO supported Sunni regimes. This may be far fetched as regimes have tried to establish workable alliances such as Syria/Egypt but fell over due to conflicting nationalistic agendas. But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria, so there could be an actual shift to a Russian supported Shiite triangle to resist Israeli/US/NATO regional influence. Also co-operate to destroy Al Qaeda aligned forces.

In summary I believe it is a mistake to take a position that the Syrians should fight it out amongst themselves as the West could be setting up for an even more painful future; as some commentators have said a return to Cold War politics and proxy wars

In both Iraq wars the US air forces went through the Russian designed and made anti aircraft and anti missile defenses like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

I can't think of any good reason why any ME government should have any confidence in either Russian or CCP-PRC air defense systems now or in the future. Yet Syria does have both Russian and some CCP-PRC made air defense systems.

It sort of reminds me of the infamous French "Imaginez" line of World War 2.

And it looks like the new president recently elected in Iran wants to do some kissing and making up, although to what extent is not yet clear. But he did send a Happy Hanukkah message to Israel - yes, he actually did do that. So something's afoot.

Do not know why you referring to Iraqi air defense capability, I'm talking about a scenario alliance with the three Shiite governments to counter US/Sunni influence. maybe a step up of Iranian sponored fighters supporting Assad now that US/France has stepped back from military strikes.

The Iranian president is on a diplomatic offensive stating Iran will not develop nuclear weapons; let's see if the Supreme Council supports him & sanctions get lifted that leads to a lessening of tensions.

[Chicog]

The Iranian president is on a diplomatic offensive stating Iran will not develop nuclear weapons; let's see if the Supreme Council supports him & sanctions get lifted that leads to a lessening of tensions.

Well for them to prove it they need to give IAEA inspectors full access to all of their sites, and we know how that normally turns out in that part of the world....

[Chicog]

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

Interesting, since it's not long they were claiming Bahrain as the 14th province. Where did they suddenly get another 20 from, or are they basically as much as admitting that they own Iraq now?

[uptheos]

If there was carte blanche to arm 'the rebels', would anyone really know who should take delivery of this stuff? A couple of years ago the west might have had some idea who would be getting the weapons, but I sincerely doubt if anyone has a clue where they would finish up now.

[simple1]

Assad is an animal, but what would he be replaced with? Is it anyone else's duty to assist in this change when 'we' are not involved?

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

Interesting, since it's not long they were claiming Bahrain as the 14th province. Where did they suddenly get another 20 from, or are they basically as much as admitting that they own Iraq now?

I just checked a few web sites & are saying their are either 30 or 31 provinces in Iran - weird

[Publicus]

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria/gkh4

There has been commentary of the potential development of a Shiite axis i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq countering the US/NATO supported Sunni regimes. This may be far fetched as regimes have tried to establish workable alliances such as Syria/Egypt but fell over due to conflicting nationalistic agendas. But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria, so there could be an actual shift to a Russian supported Shiite triangle to resist Israeli/US/NATO regional influence. Also co-operate to destroy Al Qaeda aligned forces.

In summary I believe it is a mistake to take a position that the Syrians should fight it out amongst themselves as the West could be setting up for an even more painful future; as some commentators have said a return to Cold War politics and proxy wars

In both Iraq wars the US air forces went through the Russian designed and made anti aircraft and anti missile defenses like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

I can't think of any good reason why any ME government should have any confidence in either Russian or CCP-PRC air defense systems now or in the future. Yet Syria does have both Russian and some CCP-PRC made air defense systems.

It sort of reminds me of the infamous French "Imaginez" line of World War 2.

And it looks like the new president recently elected in Iran wants to do some kissing and making up, although to what extent is not yet clear. But he did send a Happy Hanukkah message to Israel - yes, he actually did do that. So something's afoot.

Do not know why you referring to Iraqi air defense capability, I'm talking about a scenario alliance with the three Shiite governments to counter US/Sunni influence. maybe a step up of Iranian sponored fighters supporting Assad now that US/France has stepped back from military strikes.

The Iranian president is on a diplomatic offensive stating Iran will not develop nuclear weapons; let's see if the Supreme Council supports him & sanctions get lifted that leads to a lessening of tensions.

You wrote about Russian military technology as a part of a possible realignment you discussed involving Russia and Shiite governments in the ME.

But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria,

That's what I responded to. I'd thought it was fairly obvious. I still do.

[simple1]

Don't know if you ever read the article at the URL below, but a very interesting quote is

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-confidante Mehdi Taeb said that Syria is Iran’s “35th province…if we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.”[2] Without Iranian military aide and financial largesse, al-Assad’s regime may have fallen long ago"

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/27/iran-s-unwavering-support-to-assad-s-syria/gkh4

There has been commentary of the potential development of a Shiite axis i.e. Iran, Syria and Iraq countering the US/NATO supported Sunni regimes. This may be far fetched as regimes have tried to establish workable alliances such as Syria/Egypt but fell over due to conflicting nationalistic agendas. But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria, so there could be an actual shift to a Russian supported Shiite triangle to resist Israeli/US/NATO regional influence. Also co-operate to destroy Al Qaeda aligned forces.

In summary I believe it is a mistake to take a position that the Syrians should fight it out amongst themselves as the West could be setting up for an even more painful future; as some commentators have said a return to Cold War politics and proxy wars

In both Iraq wars the US air forces went through the Russian designed and made anti aircraft and anti missile defenses like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

I can't think of any good reason why any ME government should have any confidence in either Russian or CCP-PRC air defense systems now or in the future. Yet Syria does have both Russian and some CCP-PRC made air defense systems.

It sort of reminds me of the infamous French "Imaginez" line of World War 2.

And it looks like the new president recently elected in Iran wants to do some kissing and making up, although to what extent is not yet clear. But he did send a Happy Hanukkah message to Israel - yes, he actually did do that. So something's afoot.

Do not know why you referring to Iraqi air defense capability, I'm talking about a scenario alliance with the three Shiite governments to counter US/Sunni influence. maybe a step up of Iranian sponored fighters supporting Assad now that US/France has stepped back from military strikes.

The Iranian president is on a diplomatic offensive stating Iran will not develop nuclear weapons; let's see if the Supreme Council supports him & sanctions get lifted that leads to a lessening of tensions.

You wrote about Russian military technology as a part of a possible realignment you discussed involving Russia and Shiite governments in the ME.

But...Russia has committed to commence re-supply of weapons systems to Iraq; US is still the major supplier but for how long when the Russian supplied tank refurbishment facility comes on stream? Russia has proposed the supply of the same ground to air system being supplied to Syria together with new integrated national command & control technology and the latest MIG aircraft. We know Russia is the main arms supplier & supporter of Iran & Syria,

That's what I responded to. I'd thought it was fairly obvious. I still do.

I guess I was querying why you immediately jumped to US war making capability, I was not suggesing that their would be an attack on US assets etc or US would attack the countries in a regional re-alignment...never mind.

[Publicus]

When someone spends most of a post talking about military capabilities, they're talking about, well, military capabilities, as in warfare.

Also, the quote function is garbled in your post above, Simple 1, which means in particular that you and I are put into the same quote box. I point out this technical problem for the record.

[Publicus]

You've pulled off a pretty amazing trick to have missed the post on the previous page that contains the information below, that Assad used chemical warfare against his own civilian population, in a suburb of Damascus.

That's a "wealth of evidence" found by UN inspectors.

Then there are the findings of the intelligence and militaries of the United States, France, the UK based on examination of concrete evidence and victims directly affected by the attack which concludes that the particular attack could only be conducted by a state, not a band of rebels or others.

Waiting for a confession by Assad will get you nowhere, which is where you presently are in this clear and obvious matter.

Exclusive: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack

<snip>

I'm surprised you quote that report from "thecable" since the title is not so much misleading as a lie. Once you actually read the article, you realise there is nothing much in it at all. Even 'the "wealth" of evidence' you refer to is in quotes, because there is none.

Here's my précis of that article (my comments in italics):

The inspection team ... will not directly accuse the Syrian regime of gassing its own people ... But it will provide a strong circumstantial case ...

...."It seems they are very happy with the wealth of evidence they got."... - that chemical weapons were used. (Yes, we know that already)

... according to the United States and other Western powers, Syrian forces launched a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people in the al Ghouta suburb of Damascus... - yes, but where's the proof?

... Syria and Russia have denied that the government in Damascus carried out the attack, saying it was the work of Syrian rebels seeking to persuade the West to intervene militarily on their behalf ...

... Assad denied his government used chemical weapons -- and compared the U.S. case against Syria to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's flawed presentation against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In Syria, Assad said, "the Russians have completely opposite evidence: that missiles [were] thrown from areas that the rebels controlled."...

... Syria and Russia, meanwhile, have highlighted several other alleged chemical weapons attacks that wound up hitting Syrian forces ...

... Syria's U.N. ambassador Bashar al Jaafari, requested that investigators look at three other cases of alleged chemical weapons use in late August against Syrian forces ...

... Sellström's inspection team is only planning to report next week on the al Ghouta attacks. The team plans to return to Damascus at a later date to complete its investigations into the other incidents ...

... the U.N. inspectors are only authorized to conclude whether chemical weapons have been used in Syria, not assign responsibility for their use ... - so pretty pointless as we all know CW were used.

... Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, admitted his country operated a clandestine chemical weapons program, and vowed to open them up to international scrutiny as part of a Russian-brokered deal to place Syria's chemical agents under international control ...

So there you have it. You quoted a report with a headline that comes nowhere near reflecting the content of the article.

I won't bother with your "Yahoo.news" quote.

The "lie" is in defending Assad and Putin.

Assad is gassing and murdering his own population. It's now in its 30th consecutive month. Assad is Putin's friend and one knows a person by his friends.

And the record is clear what Putin is doing to his own population at home in Russia. Once a KGB always a KGB.

The rebels have been reported as using chemical weapons, but I suppose that is ok then.

By the way, this may surprise you but this thread is about Syria, not your blatant hatred of Putin. We all know of your hatred of Russia and China but this isn't the thread to try and spout your bigoted views.

You consistently accuse me of "hate."

You are wrong and extreme.

I can have a strong dislike or a strong disapproval. I can strongly criticize. I can even have contempt.

However, I don't go around hating or full of hate, whether it's simple "hate" or "blind hate." I don't hate.

I'd appreciate your realization of the fact, thank you.

[Publicus]

Exclusive: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack

The Russian Plan Of Removing Syria's Chemical Weapons Mid-War Is A 'Nightmare'

EU: All info on Syria gas attack points to Assad

The European Union agreed on Saturday that the Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syria's regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors' report.

I'm not doubting any of these reports, but it seems that some seem to be far too eager to drop bombs and kill people. Also, no doubt that Assad is a murderous cretin and that Putin is a duplicitous monster . . . but the hypocrisy of the would-be-bombers and aye-sayers is incredible.

100.000 dead so far . . . and nary a noise . . . after all, it is a civil war.

1000 dead supposedly from chemical weapons? Sodom and Gomorrah! Inexcusable, we must intervene. Roll out the B52s and crank up the drone-brigade.

Why haven't the powers that be intervened before? Why haven't 'surgical strikes' taken out Assad and his top ten henchmen?

Why does Putin look like the good guy here?

An excerpt from Putin's 'ad' in the NYT:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

Smackdown Russian Style

Putin speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

He's such a phony and a liar he can't keep track of what he's saying, just that he's taking both sides in the New York Times at different times.

But Putin seemed notably less concerned about civilian deaths and the second-order effects of military intervention when he took to the same opinion page in 1999 to make the case for intervention -- in Chechnya.

In an editorial titled "Why We Must Act," he defended Russian military action, writing that "in the midst of war, even the most carefully planned military operations occasionally cause civilian casualties, and we deeply regret that."

Despite international concerns, though, he assured readers that the Russian counterinsurgency operation would not cause widespread harm to civilians. "American officials tell us that ordinary citizens are suffering, that our military tactics may increase that suffering," he wrote then.

"The very opposite is true. Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population. We have nothing to gain by doing otherwise."

Because when the Russians stage a military intervention, it's different.

That Awkward Time Putin Called for Military Intervention in the New York Times

In 1999, Putin justified the "decisive armed intervention" in Chechnya as "the only way to prevent further casualties both within and far outside the borders of Chechnya, further suffering by so many people enslaved by terrorists."

"[W]hen a society's core interests are besieged by violent elements," he wrote, "responsible leaders must respond."

That's not unlike the case President Obama made on Tuesday. The use of chemical weapons in Syria demonstrated "why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war," Obama said

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/12/that_awkward_time_putin_called_for_military_intervention_in_the_new_york_times

This is Sen John McCain's response, published in the Russian newspaper Pravda ("Truth" haha), in response to Vladimir Putin's op-ed published in the NYT and referenced in a post above.

Sen McCain lays it out for everyone to read about Vladimir Putin as a head of state, as the leader of a nation. Sen McCain's article, headlined "Russians Deserve Better Than Putin," includes the following statement:

A Russian citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Putin and his associates do not believe in these values. They don’t respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even assassinate journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose sexual orientation they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Putin’s rule.

The only reason Sen McCain, or anyone, was allowed to publish a criticism of Putin in Russia is because, after Putin's op-ed in the NYT, referenced above, it was pointed out that no Russian citizen can make any public criticism of Putin and survive to tell the story. So Pravda offered McCain the forum to publish his criticisms. Pravda, however, simultaneously published its own criticisms of Sen McCain, so it remains undisputed that nobody criticizing Putin in Russia ever gets off Scott free.

John McCain's Response To Vladimir Putin's Op-Ed Is Finally Here, And It Is Blistering

In a much-anticipated response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed in The New York Times last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a blistering op-ed in the Russian publication Pravda in which he accuses Putin of being a corrupt autocrat.

"President Putin doesn’t believe in these values because he doesn’t believe in you. He doesn’t believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies," McCain wrote.

"Or, at least, he doesn’t believe Russians can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-pravda-op-ed-vladimir-putin-nyt-new-york-times-2013-9#ixzz2fL2VCztN

[Publicus]

Let's get back to Syria, Russia, the USA et al.

Russia's Tangled Logic on Syria

How does Russia square its contention that President Bashar al-Assad wasn't responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack, with its agreement that the correct response to that attack is to disarm the Syrian regime of chemical weapons?

And what exactly is Russia's attitude to the "responsibility to protect" principle -- an international duty to prevent the slaughter of civilians in civil wars that was adopted by the United Nations in 2005 -- which Russia says it supports, but tends to block in practice?

The determination to block any form of military intervention leads directly to the second unsquared circle: Russia's approach to the responsibility to protect, which mandates the protection of civilians.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-18/russia-s-tangled-logic-on-syria.html

[Scott]

Personal remarks directed at other posters have been deleted. Continue at your own risk. Suspensions will be issued.

[MikeOboe57]

It seems McCain is thoroughly pissed that God's Own Country did not get the chance to carpet bomb Syria. Will America now start to arm "Russian rebels" and seek UN approval for "no-fly-zones", "humanitarian corridors" and "punitive strikes"?

[boomerangutang]

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.

Well since Obama has not gone in to stop it all and actually agrees with Putin is he too guilty as sin?

As Obama has agreed to the Putin option it would seem from what you say that he is indeed a very weak leader as he has done nothing to stop it all.

Obama is very lucky he has a man like Putin around to steer him in the right direction.

First off, we're at the preliminary stages of chemi-weapons disarmnament and destruction of those weapons. The idea was broached recently, and US Sec.of State gave Assad's regime 1 week to state how much C. weapons they had. Assad won't comply for the near term and he won't comply for the long term. Already he's saying others must pay for everything: inspections, transportation, destruction of weapons. Do you think S.Arabia or Iran or even Russia will pay for that? Maybe Russia, to some degree. But as usual, with such things (US paid for Russian securing its Nuke arsenals), Uncle Sam will likely pay the lion's share for dealing responsibly with weapons that Assad either bought, or had given to him by Iraq (when hiding their arsenal from UN inspectors).

We can't say it's a done deal until the weapons are incinerated and, as far as I know, only the US and Russia have such specialized facilities.

It's like Assad shit his pants, and he wants Uncle Sam to wipe him off and launder his soiled clothes.

BTW, Putin grabbed the headlines recently, but many in the US (and elsewhere) have been clamoring for years: wanting Syria and other chemical weapons harboring countries to clean up their act. US and Russia aren't clean as the driven snow, and both have spent billions of dollars incinerating their own arsenals.

[pancakeman]