Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Mosha]

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.

Regime change 3rd time lucky.?

[NeverSure]

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?

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.

And more. Lots of liberals. Pelosi, Reid...

Here's the main argument "for" on tonight's news. "If America does nothing it loses credibility with Russia, China, Iran, etc. It must do something so that it doesn't make idle threats."

If I had to bet tonight, I'd say it's a go.

McCain was talking about bombers, but no one is going to give away tactics in advance. There are also stealth subs that can launch a variety of missiles from the deep including GPS guided cruise missiles.

[Scott]

Well my purpose in making the statement and asking the question was to ascertain that the thread wasn't just about Obama. Apparently it isn't.

So the discussion can now center on Syria and the course of action in dealing with it and the Chemical weapons.

[JDGRUEN]

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.

Regime change 3rd time lucky.?

Lucky as Libya ... which is now a total lawless train wreck ... oil fields shut down ... assignations, battling militias... non functioning infrastructure ... Just what we need in Syria in the aftermath ... Syria is a total train wreck now .. just imagine when Islamist Militias take over after bombing devastation.... 'obama's motto for the Syrian strike ... 'Iron age hell - let's go to stone age'

[NeverSure]

The OP headline mentions that Assad says it could trigger regional war. None of the talking heads seems worried about that. To a person, everyone seems to think that Russia will back off. At the least, no one is worried about Russia's capability to do anything. Nor Iran for that matter.

There just seems to be this nearly unified thinking in congress that failure to follow through sends a very bad message.

[NeverSure]

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.

Regime change 3rd time lucky.?

Lucky as Libya ... which is now a total lawless train wreck ... oil fields shut down ... assignations, battling militias... non functioning infrastructure ... Just what we need in Syria in the aftermath ... Syria is a total train wreck now .. just imagine when Islamist Militias take over after bombing devastation.... 'obama's motto for the Syrian strike ... 'Iron age hell - let's go to stone age'

I've been flipping through the various news channels and of course this is the headline. There are statements that regime change isn't the goal but rather a good spanking.

We'll see.

[Mosha]

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.

Regime change 3rd time lucky.?

Lucky as Libya ... which is now a total lawless train wreck ... oil fields shut down ... assignations, battling militias... non functioning infrastructure ... Just what we need in Syria in the aftermath ... Syria is a total train wreck now .. just imagine when Islamist Militias take over after bombing devastation.... 'obama's motto for the Syrian strike ... 'Iron age hell - let's go to stone age'

I've been flipping through the various news channels and of course this is the headline. There are statements that regime change isn't the goal but rather a good spanking.

We'll see.

I don't believe their stated goal for 1 nan second. Of course it's the goal. Just like every other country in the region, where the west has stuck it's nose in..

[JDGRUEN]

The OP headline mentions that Assad says it could trigger regional war. None of the talking heads seems worried about that. To a person, everyone seems to think that Russia will back off. At the least, no one is worried about Russia's capability to do anything. Nor Iran for that matter.

There just seems to be this nearly unified thinking in congress that failure to follow through sends a very bad message.

Russia probably will not take action .. except to supply MORE Shore to Ship hypersonic missiles ... This is a published fact that the Russians have already supplied some...

Recall that the Iranians nearly totally destroyed the American USS Stark with a French supplied Exocet aircraft to ship missile in 1987.

Plus the British in the Falklands War in 1982 lost the HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged due to an anti-ship missile.

Just think of the technology advances since then ?

And - something tells me that this kind of result could happen again in the 'Quick Draw' obama approach ... push the military into some sort of 'limited' engagement under drastic budget cuts and get the ships zapped with high technology missiles. American Destroyers have excellent missile defense systems - but will they all work - all the time - every time... ?

I hope members of Congress are thinking about these sorts of things.

[boomerangutang]

Lucky as Libya ... which is now a total lawless train wreck ... oil fields shut down ... assignations, battling militias... non functioning infrastructure ... Just what we need in Syria in the aftermath ... Syria is a total train wreck now .. just imagine when Islamist Militias take over after bombing devastation.... 'obama's motto for the Syrian strike ... 'Iron age hell - let's go to stone age'

Middle Eastern countries readily devolve to 'train wreck' status (to use your phrase). Other than Israel, ME countries are run by heavy-handed dictators, religious fanatics, or are in abject conflict. I got a grin from your closing; 'Iron age hell - let's go to stone age' That's witty. Whether western superior forces come in to play or not, the region is sick mongrels caught in a tar pit.

[NeverSure]

The OP headline mentions that Assad says it could trigger regional war. None of the talking heads seems worried about that. To a person, everyone seems to think that Russia will back off. At the least, no one is worried about Russia's capability to do anything. Nor Iran for that matter.

There just seems to be this nearly unified thinking in congress that failure to follow through sends a very bad message.

Russia probably will not take action .. except to supply MORE Shore to Ship hypersonic missiles ... This is a published fact that the Russians have already supplied some...

Recall that the Iranians nearly totally destroyed the American USS Stark with a French supplied Exocet aircraft to ship missile in 1987.

Plus the British in the Falklands War in 1982 lost the HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged due to an anti-ship missile.

Just think of the technology advances since then ?

And - something tells me that this kind of result could happen again in the 'Quick Draw' obama approach ... push the military into some sort of 'limited' engagement under drastic budget cuts and get the ships zapped with high technology missiles. American Destroyers have excellent missile defense systems - but will they all work - all the time - every time... ?

I hope members of Congress are thinking about these sorts of things.

Well the US military thinks it can shoot down anti ship missiles. Also, I'm not convinced that this will be an attack from ships. Those destroyers could be misdirection. McCain mentioned dropping bombs, but that could just be rhetoric. What do I know?

I don't think the US is going to telegraph it's methods.

[JDGRUEN]

A friend of mine named Robert had a few thoughts about the International Support obama could expect ...

The french will bring the wine and accordions. That's about it. I say we should let the French deal with it. They created this country psuedo-bordering about 20 tribes who have been warring for 4000 years. Yeh....a "shot across the bow" ought to make them behave all of a sudden

[JDGRUEN]

The OP headline mentions that Assad says it could trigger regional war. None of the talking heads seems worried about that. To a person, everyone seems to think that Russia will back off. At the least, no one is worried about Russia's capability to do anything. Nor Iran for that matter.

There just seems to be this nearly unified thinking in congress that failure to follow through sends a very bad message.

Russia probably will not take action .. except to supply MORE Shore to Ship hypersonic missiles ... This is a published fact that the Russians have already supplied some...

Recall that the Iranians nearly totally destroyed the American USS Stark with a French supplied Exocet aircraft to ship missile in 1987.

Plus the British in the Falklands War in 1982 lost the HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged due to an anti-ship missile.

Just think of the technology advances since then ?

And - something tells me that this kind of result could happen again in the 'Quick Draw' obama approach ... push the military into some sort of 'limited' engagement under drastic budget cuts and get the ships zapped with high technology missiles. American Destroyers have excellent missile defense systems - but will they all work - all the time - every time... ?

I hope members of Congress are thinking about these sorts of things.

Well the US military thinks it can shoot down anti ship missiles. Also, I'm not convinced that this will be an attack from ships. Those destroyers could be misdirection. McCain mentioned dropping bombs, but that could just be rhetoric. What do I know?

I don't think the US is going to telegraph it's methods.

Telegraph --- ? The obama Administration has already sent the equivalent of email with graphic photos and video with links to web addresses... plus a Skype video chat invitation - Good Grief ! Yes - cruise missiles could be sent from submarines - but the Destroyers have many more ... and are cheaper to send ... Just watch and see how non stealthy they get ....

[NeverSure]

Well the US military thinks it can shoot down anti ship missiles. Also, I'm not convinced that this will be an attack from ships. Those destroyers could be misdirection. McCain mentioned dropping bombs, but that could just be rhetoric. What do I know?

I don't think the US is going to telegraph it's methods.

Telegraph --- ? The obama Administration has already sent the equivalent of email with graphic photos and video with links to web addresses... plus a Skype video chat invitation - Good Grief ! Yes - cruise missiles could be sent from submarines - but the Destroyers have many more ... and are cheaper to send ... Just watch and see how non stealthy they get ....

Well, obviously I don't know. McCain and Obama have been meeting. McCain said on the news tonight "drop bombs." A group of ten stealth bombers could slip in and drop 800 500 pound GPS guided bombs and get away without ever being seen.

IF there is an attack, obviously someone smarter than I am will pull the trigger.

[JDGRUEN]

Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles

By Michael Snyder, on September 2nd, 2013

The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far. From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean... Russia will supply Syria with Skean 5 ground-to-sea missiles that are capable of hitting and sinking any target up to 250 km off the Syrian coast.... these missiles have the range to hit targets in Cyprus. Perhaps someone should tell U.S. military planners that it is probably not a good idea to be parking so much air power at bases there.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/russia-has-equipped-syria-with-their-most-advanced-anti-ship-missiles

[JDGRUEN]

Well the US military thinks it can shoot down anti ship missiles. Also, I'm not convinced that this will be an attack from ships. Those destroyers could be misdirection. McCain mentioned dropping bombs, but that could just be rhetoric. What do I know?

I don't think the US is going to telegraph it's methods.

Telegraph --- ? The obama Administration has already sent the equivalent of email with graphic photos and video with links to web addresses... plus a Skype video chat invitation - Good Grief ! Yes - cruise missiles could be sent from submarines - but the Destroyers have many more ... and are cheaper to send ... Just watch and see how non stealthy they get ....

Well, obviously I don't know. McCain and Obama have been meeting. McCain said on the news tonight "drop bombs." A group of ten stealth bombers could slip in and drop 800 500 pound GPS guided bombs and get away without ever being seen.

IF there is an attack, obviously someone smarter than I am will pull the trigger.

Yes - and in the first days of 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq ... thousands of bombs and missiles were dropped or sent ... and Saddam Hussein walked away .... and the total damage did not knock out the Iraq defenses

[F430murci]

Russia Has Equipped Syria With Their Most Advanced Anti-Ship Missiles

By Michael Snyder, on September 2nd, 2013

The Syrian military is the most formidable adversary that the U.S. military has tangled with in the Middle East by far. From Syria, P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles can cover much of the eastern Mediterranean... Russia will supply Syria with Skean 5 ground-to-sea missiles that are capable of hitting and sinking any target up to 250 km off the Syrian coast.... these missiles have the range to hit targets in Cyprus. Perhaps someone should tell U.S. military planners that it is probably not a good idea to be parking so much air power at bases there.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/russia-has-equipped-syria-with-their-most-advanced-anti-ship-missiles

Seeing as I posted this several months ago based on an MSNBC article, I would imagine that US planners also already know and no one "needs to tell US planners."

Although I saw it on MSNBC, here is May article on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Mosha]

A wider intent to degrade the military.

http://news.uk.msn.com/comment-and-analysis/syria-crisis-obama-hints-at-wider-action-against-assad/

Now if that wouldn't facilitate regime change, what would?

[simple1]

Historically the Syrians have every reason to hate the French for violent intervention in domestic affairs. The last military attack by the French on Syria, in 1945, was on a democratically elected government (they wanted to take back their mandate) was actually stopped by the British & the French were forced to withdraw in 1946. It was a disaster for the French in Algeria, but the French military were very effective in stopping the advance by Al Qaeda affiliated forces in Mali.

So far not one Western government or their allies have committed to boots on the ground in Syria by their military, so how do Western governments expect to bring a resolution satisfactory to US/NATO to the civil war in Syria?

[F430murci]

A wider intent to degrade the military.

http://news.uk.msn.com/comment-and-analysis/syria-crisis-obama-hints-at-wider-action-against-assad/

Now if that wouldn't facilitate regime change, what would?

Of course he is. He could not have received backing from some that are now backing him without a meaningful plan that has a possibility if effectuating some kind of change.

[Ulysses G.]

Agreed. If the administration goes ahead with the face-saving pinprick that was telegraphed in the beginning, McCain and the other conservatives will work against it and they will never get the strike passed.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[hawker9000]

And more. Lots of liberals. Pelosi, Reid...

Here's the main argument "for" on tonight's news. "If America does nothing it loses credibility with Russia, China, Iran, etc. It must do something so that it doesn't make idle threats."

If I had to bet tonight, I'd say it's a go.

McCain was talking about bombers, but no one is going to give away tactics in advance. There are also stealth subs that can launch a variety of missiles from the deep including GPS guided cruise missiles.

LOL. If missiles start landing in Damascus, I don't think there'll be much doubt where they came from. No need for stealth, or bombing. I think COMSIXTHFLT and those destroyers are aware of and can handle any Syrian anti-ship missile threat. (Now a threat from Russian warships that happen to be in the eastern Med might WELL be another matter...) Not giving much away to know that it's going to be Tomahawks. Syria has no means of stopping them. What was there to be given away pretty much already has been, and Assad's undoubtedly repositioning his high-value units as best he can already.

Boehner's remarks were unexpected I think. But I'm not sure if that can be extrapolated to a sure win for Obama in the House. Maybe. Some more twists & turns ahead I expect.

The OP headline mentions that Assad says it could trigger regional war. None of the talking heads seems worried about that. To a person, everyone seems to think that Russia will back off. At the least, no one is worried about Russia's capability to do anything. Nor Iran for that matter.

There just seems to be this nearly unified thinking in congress that failure to follow through sends a very bad message.

Russia probably will not take action .. except to supply MORE Shore to Ship hypersonic missiles ... This is a published fact that the Russians have already supplied some...

Recall that the Iranians nearly totally destroyed the American USS Stark with a French supplied Exocet aircraft to ship missile in 1987.

Plus the British in the Falklands War in 1982 lost the HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged due to an anti-ship missile.

Just think of the technology advances since then ?

And - something tells me that this kind of result could happen again in the 'Quick Draw' obama approach ... push the military into some sort of 'limited' engagement under drastic budget cuts and get the ships zapped with high technology missiles. American Destroyers have excellent missile defense systems - but will they all work - all the time - every time... ?

I hope members of Congress are thinking about these sorts of things.

Miscalculation. The mother of all causes of war... NOBODY can guarantee what's in store after the strike being talked about finally takes place. Nobody. Why not plan yourself a September vacation in, oh say, Tel Aviv, and let us know how it goes? And if some Russian personnel get caught in those missile strikes (they man some of Syria's more advanced launch facilities I hear), I don't think Putin will be sending Obama a Christmas card this year...

A friend of mine named Robert had a few thoughts about the International Support obama could expect ...

The french will bring the wine and accordions. That's about it. I say we should let the French deal with it. They created this country psuedo-bordering about 20 tribes who have been warring for 4000 years. Yeh....a "shot across the bow" ought to make them behave all of a sudden

Incorrect. Syria was not "created" by France. It was created out of the First World War post-war "mandates", which broke up the old Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Territory was distributed among the victors: France got Syria & Leabanon. Britain got Iraq. Syria was decolonized in 1958 and became part of the UAR (with Egypt). It seceded from the UAR and became fully independent in 1961.

[NeverSure]

I'm just guessing of course, but it seems to me that if this thing goes down it won't be limited to one type of weapon.

Also, Russia spends very little on its military and much is antiquated. The US leaders don't seem at all worried about it. Surely they know more than I do.

[JetsetBkk]

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.

"punishment of the use of chemical weapons" - yes, but by who?

Who used the chemical weapons?

"Proof" is such a simple concept, but appears to escape most people here.

[Publicus]

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.

"punishment of the use of chemical weapons" - yes, but by who?

Who used the chemical weapons?

"Proof" is such a simple concept, but appears to escape most people here.

I don't believe Assad's denials.

[Chicog]

A wider intent to degrade the military.

http://news.uk.msn.com/comment-and-analysis/syria-crisis-obama-hints-at-wider-action-against-assad/

Now if that wouldn't facilitate regime change, what would?

If Russia and Iran had stayed out of it, the regime would have changed a long time ago.

[jpinx]

USA is being played like an out-of-tune violin. They are headed off at every turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Now congress can vote any old way because Putin has basically promised Russia (and by default China) will vote yes if UN is satisfied that action is needed. USA and France would be very foolish to try to swim against the tide now. UN is the place to resolve this, not Washington.

[Publicus]

There's more to the Syria matter than meets the eye.

New developments are emerging as Prez Obama has opened up to key Republican party senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who now are making favorable statements about the president having a Syria strategy, and that the current military plan is the opening volley of the president's new Syria strategy.

The ground may be shifting here and now.

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

There is a U.S. Syria strategy, and it is showing signs of increasing success.

Former U.S. Army vice chief of staff General Jack Keane said he spoke with Republican senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who were briefed by the president on Monday.

Subsequently Graham, who recently said he cannot support limited strikes that "are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield," said: "There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-strategy-in-syria-2013-9#ixzz2dugxyKrT

[antfish]

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

Obama isn't infallible.

And people who are against another war are probably just like that: against another war.

Don't follow your leaders blindly.

[antfish]

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.

planing to fire missiles or drop bombs on another country is planning to go to war in my book

[Jingthing]

USA is being played like an out-of-tune violin. They are headed off at every turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Now congress can vote any old way because Putin has basically promised Russia (and by default China) will vote yes if UN is satisfied that action is needed. USA and France would be very foolish to try to swim against the tide now. UN is the place to resolve this, not Washington.

That's just political cover and PR propaganda. Russia in the U.N. would veto ANYTHING that meant action against Syria. They would ALWAYS come up with an excuse. No matter what. You can take that to the bank.