I don't know anything about the European Times, it could be the official publication of an arms manufacturer. But I looked at one story linked by Asif Mandi on twitter and saw these other two. Put them together and you can dream up a nightmare scenario: Iran to deploy ’4000-strong force’ to Syria as US military set to stay in Jordan http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/syria-well-strike-israel-if-us-attacks/ Syria: We’ll Strike Israel If US Attacks http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/syria-well-strike-israel-if-us-attacks/ Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/ I assume it's just war mongering, but you don't have to be Tom Clancy to write a book with this premise. According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia. I assume it's just yellow journalism, but you don't have to be Tom Clancy to write this book.
I doubt Putin will risk world war over Syria because if he attacks Saudi Arabia that is what will happen.
Both USA and Russia attacked and destroyed enough number of countries, but the world war did not happen.
Syria: Subjective Desires Fed by Ambiguous Intel Never Turns Out Well An alternative title for this post could be, "Sal's 14 Pillars of Neo-Realism." On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday. 1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government. 2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt. 3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either. 4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory. 5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival. 6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus. 7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing. 8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him. 9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces. 10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces. 11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups. 12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda. 13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear. 14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically. So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people. If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes. Is that pretty? No. Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016. http://www.cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-subjective-desires-fed-by.html
Al-Qaeda will gain some craziness and they will be toppled in many ways very soon. The real winners are the same ones who had committed war crimes in Iraq war.
then: I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up. My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t respond well to that kind of bluster. They haven’t in the past, there’s no reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialogue and we were able to identify interests that were compatible with theirs.” now: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Obama to PBS: "we send a shot across the bow and say stop doing this, that can have a positive impact."</p>— Rick Klein (@rickklein) <a href="https://twitter.com/rickklein/statuses/372844319037607936">August 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
it's time to act. it's not a question of who used the chemical weapon. the fact is, innocent people are dying espcially kids and Syria is obviously not able to control the country... somebody has to teach this barbarians a lesson.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official What the hell is going on here?
Right. White man's burden and all that. For crying out loud, I'm basically an imperialist and I think putting boots on the ground is a bad move. Send in the drones, let the Syrians kill each other, and use it to put further pressure on the Iranians.
My position is to side with anybody and anyone that can keep the unwashed, and filthy poor Muslims from having their way, and then call anyone who disagrees with me an idiot.
That was the point. We can not justify this attack on Assad if the side we help do the same. Right? Unless we decide to take on both sides......This whole situation is f'ed. Obama should have kept his cards hidden......Biden too.
