Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'll throw it in a spoiler because it's a long read, but really emphasizes just how deeply embedded the Russians are with Syria/Iran. There is really no good option for Obama on this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... -for-long/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spoiler: show

One of the reasons the states came together to form the federal government was to provide for the “common defense” of the American people.
In keeping with this, the so-called "Reagan Test" has been the best guide as to when U.S. military action is wise -- that is when a vital U.S. national security interest at stake. Once committing to military action, our mission must be clearly defined and we must have an end game.
Let’s look at Syria. The atrocities of the Assad regime are horrific. A friendly Syria, without Assad, would be great news for the free world. It could also help weaken Iran.
Unfortunately, a number of the members of the loose band of Assad opposition groups have strong ties to Al Qaeda, and one in fact—the Al-Nusra Front—has been designated by both the Unites States and the United Nations as a terrorist organization.
If you consider the “Putin Factor,” the ability of Syria to reconstitute itself militarily and possibility of an Al Qaeda-linked group acquiring chemical weapons, military action doesn’t make sense.
Further, President Obama now says that any possible military action is not about regime change.
So what is the purpose militarily and where is the vital U.S. national security interest?
As the situation stands now, the only vital U.S. national security interest concerns Syria’s five major chemical weapons sites and the storage facility at Cerin, which handles the Syrian Biological Weapons Program. We must take whatever action necessary to insure that none of this falls into the hands of any opposition groups with Al Qaeda ties.
By almost all accounts, the U.S. is looking at a very short “surgical strike” by firing about 200 cruise missiles from ships and submarines at a cost of roughly $350 million.
We can’t take out the chemical facilities under such a scenario for fears of creating plumes of deadly vapors, so the U.S. will try and target “command and control” sites and systems capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons.
But then what?
Syria, which is the largest importer of Russian arms in the Middle East, will be able to reconstitute itself quickly in terms of weaponry thanks to its relationship with the old KGB agent, Vladimir Putin.
Further, such a short-term exercise for show, with no real impact, could actually have disastrous consequences. It might indirectly help radical Islamic groups gain power and increase the possibility of one or more of the chemical weapons facilities falling into the hands of an Al Qaeda-linked organization.
Recently, Russia’s deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that “The West is playing with the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade.”
The United States has cut its Defense budget drastically in recent years, while Russia’s is expected to increase 59% by 2015.
As U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee said last week, “No red line should have been drawn without the strategy and funding to support it.”
Recently, retired General Colin Powell also cautioned against military intervention in Syria.
Syria’s ability to reconstitute itself militarily and acquire new military technology from Putin, after a short-term U.S. Military exercise for show, is real.
Let’s look at the facts.
-- In 2005, Russia forgave 75% of Syria’s debt for military purchases (about $9 billion) in order to be able to sell new weapons to Syria.
-- Last year, military arms contracts between Russia and Syria were $4.3 billion.
-- Russia has a Naval Support Base in Syria at Tartus, which it has expanded since 2009 and the channel has been dredged to allow larger Russian ships to enter. Currently, it can support up to 10 guided-missile cruisers, submarines and aircraft carriers.
-- There are reports that earlier this summer, Putin supplied the Assad regime with new, state of the art rocket launchers and Skean 5 ground-to-sea missiles, capable of reaching targets 250 km off of Syria’s coast.
-- Russia has delivered to Syria its most advanced anti-ship missile, the P-800 Yakhont super-sonic anti-ship cruise missile.
--Within the last week, Russia has deployed 2 warships to the east Mediterranean (a missile cruiser and a large anti-submarine ship). On Sunday, Russia dispatched the reconnaissance ship Priazovye to the Syrian coast.
-- Russia has signed a contract to provide Syria its top of the line S-300 Air Defense Missile System, capable of shooting down aircraft and cruise missiles from 5 to 200 kilometers. Syria says the missiles began arriving this May, while Russia says the delivery is not finished. Recently, Putin renewed veiled threats to supply the system to Iran.
When you consider the “Putin Factor” and the ability of Syria to reconstitute itself militarily, together with potentially increasing the possibility of an Al Qaeda linked group acquiring chemical weapons, military action, as currently envisioned, doesn’t make sense.
Most importantly, where is the vital U.S. national security interest? And what is the end game?
What does make sense would be for the U.S. to develop a real foreign policy. These are dangerous times and the stakes are high. Unfortunately, today America lacks a clear and defined foreign policy—a real plan—and we continually send all the wrong signals.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/ ... z2e29dncii" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Syria is home to the only Russian naval base in the Med. Sea. I don't think the Russians will give that up without a fight.

This potential Syrian missile defense shield was a bit of a surprise to me...apparently that was Putin's "welcome to the G20" gift to Obama today.

ASUG8 wrote:This potential Syrian missile defense shield was a bit of a surprise to me...apparently that was Putin's "welcome to the G20" gift to Obama today.

I wouldn't be too worried about that missile defense shield

grizzaholic wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:This potential Syrian missile defense shield was a bit of a surprise to me...apparently that was Putin's "welcome to the G20" gift to Obama today.

I wouldn't be too worried about that missile defense shield

Yeah, we're telegraphing all our actions - I doubt any potential targets will be within 10 miles of where we think they are.

Edit: some pics are blocked at work - Russian tech is generally pretty suspect.

Here's the question I hear from everyday people that I don't hear on any network: "Why should we care what Russia thinks?" Yea, I get the UN veto power but we fought a cold war against USSR/Russia & we won. Yea, they have nukes but they're not going to use them. How is Putin & Russia even relevant in our international policy? Personally the Chinese IMO should hold more weight than the Ruskies & even that should be very little.....

That being said, take every country with the exception of Syria out of the equation & I still don't see what the gain is for the US in doing anything over there right now.....

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's the question I hear from everyday people that I don't hear on any network: "Why should we care what Russia thinks?" Yea, I get the UN veto power but we fought a cold war against USSR/Russia & we won. Yea, they have nukes but they're not going to use them. How is Putin & Russia even relevant in our international policy? Personally the Chinese IMO should hold more weight than the Ruskies & even that should be very little.....

That being said, take every country with the exception of Syria out of the equation & I still don't see what the gain is for the US in doing anything over there right now.....

Obama has even less Congressional and public support for a Syrian attack than Bush had on Iraq, yet keeps reminding us that he can use his executive power to bypass Congress if necessary. Personally, I don't see the US benefit either but I could see how Putin could stall our efforts of make them only a short term or partial remedy.

ASUG8 wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's the question I hear from everyday people that I don't hear on any network: "Why should we care what Russia thinks?" Yea, I get the UN veto power but we fought a cold war against USSR/Russia & we won. Yea, they have nukes but they're not going to use them. How is Putin & Russia even relevant in our international policy? Personally the Chinese IMO should hold more weight than the Ruskies & even that should be very little.....

That being said, take every country with the exception of Syria out of the equation & I still don't see what the gain is for the US in doing anything over there right now.....

Obama has even less Congressional and public support for a Syrian attack than Bush had on Iraq, yet keeps reminding us that he can use his executive power to bypass Congress if necessary. Personally, I don't see the US benefit either but I could see how Putin could stall our efforts of make them only a short term or partial remedy.

And make it even more pointless than it already is.

grizzaholic wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:This potential Syrian missile defense shield was a bit of a surprise to me...apparently that was Putin's "welcome to the G20" gift to Obama today.

I wouldn't be too worried about that missile defense shield

That is what we, in the biz, call a LTRRDS.

Spoiler: show

Low Tech Rectal Rocket Delivery System

ASUG8 wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's the question I hear from everyday people that I don't hear on any network: "Why should we care what Russia thinks?" Yea, I get the UN veto power but we fought a cold war against USSR/Russia & we won. Yea, they have nukes but they're not going to use them. How is Putin & Russia even relevant in our international policy? Personally the Chinese IMO should hold more weight than the Ruskies & even that should be very little.....

That being said, take every country with the exception of Syria out of the equation & I still don't see what the gain is for the US in doing anything over there right now.....

Obama has even less Congressional and public support for a Syrian attack than Bush had on Iraq, yet keeps reminding us that he can use his executive power to bypass Congress if necessary. Personally, I don't see the US benefit either but I could see how Putin could stall our efforts of make them only a short term or partial remedy.

Not saying I'm in favor of taking action, but there's a big difference in starting a full-on ground invasion and a resolution that specifically prohibits just that.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Obama has even less Congressional and public support for a Syrian attack than Bush had on Iraq, yet keeps reminding us that he can use his executive power to bypass Congress if necessary. Personally, I don't see the US benefit either but I could see how Putin could stall our efforts of make them only a short term or partial remedy.

Not saying I'm in favor of taking action, but there's a big difference in starting a full-on ground invasion and a resolution that specifically prohibits just that.

No question GATW, I agree. I also don't envy the position BO has painted himself into on this.
*If we do nothing, the Syrian government continues to do what they're doing, will likely put down the uprising over time, and the killing will stop. Also, Putin appears to his homeland that he made Obama blink (which I could really care less about). There will be additional atrocities, but eventually I think the government will win out.
*If we do something (especially unilaterally or without UN approval) we risk stirring up Russia and Iran, we destabilize the region even more, we have yet another country fighting to gain control (i.e. Libya and Egypt), and al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum.

I wish we had some confidence about who the "bad guys" in this war truly are.

Either way, we've arrived at a fork in the road, so now we're going to have to take it.

ASUG8 wrote: No question GATW, I agree. I also don't envy the position BO has painted himself into on this.
*If we do nothing, the Syrian government continues to do what they're doing, will likely put down the uprising over time, and the killing will stop. Also, Putin appears to his homeland that he made Obama blink (which I could really care less about). There will be additional atrocities, but eventually I think the government will win out.
*If we do something (especially unilaterally or without UN approval) we risk stirring up Russia and Iran, we destabilize the region even more, we have yet another country fighting to gain control (i.e. Libya and Egypt), and al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum.

I wish we had some confidence about who the "bad guys" in this war truly are.

Either way, we've arrived at a fork in the road, so now we're going to have to take it.

We take the no action road...and laugh while Russia gets to deal with the fallout.

Hey, Putznin...those Muslin nutbags are all yours, baby. Have fun!

Then we tell Saudi Arabia and the rest of the wealthy sheiks that it is time for their sons and daughters to die fighting the so-called bad guys in their region.

Cluck U wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: No question GATW, I agree. I also don't envy the position BO has painted himself into on this.
*If we do nothing, the Syrian government continues to do what they're doing, will likely put down the uprising over time, and the killing will stop. Also, Putin appears to his homeland that he made Obama blink (which I could really care less about). There will be additional atrocities, but eventually I think the government will win out.
*If we do something (especially unilaterally or without UN approval) we risk stirring up Russia and Iran, we destabilize the region even more, we have yet another country fighting to gain control (i.e. Libya and Egypt), and al-Quaeda and other terrorist organizations have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum.

I wish we had some confidence about who the "bad guys" in this war truly are.

Either way, we've arrived at a fork in the road, so now we're going to have to take it.

We take the no action road...and laugh while Russia gets to deal with the fallout.

Hey, Putznin...those Muslin nutbags are all yours, baby. Have fun!

Then we tell Saudi Arabia and the rest of the wealthy sheiks that it is time for their sons and daughters to die fighting the so-called bad guys in their region.

This. The do nothing road appeals to everyone who doesn’t go to work on the Hill. It’s sickening listening to all the blowhard on the radio/news talking about how we absolutely have to do something. WHY do we have to do something?

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Obama has even less Congressional and public support for a Syrian attack than Bush had on Iraq, yet keeps reminding us that he can use his executive power to bypass Congress if necessary. Personally, I don't see the US benefit either but I could see how Putin could stall our efforts of make them only a short term or partial remedy.

Not saying I'm in favor of taking action, but there's a big difference in starting a full-on ground invasion and a resolution that specifically prohibits just that.

RT: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Not saying I'm in favor of taking action, but there's a big difference in starting a full-on ground invasion and a resolution that specifically prohibits just that.

RT: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

Shouldn't we have robots doing our ground assault by now?

grizzaholic wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
RT: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

Shouldn't we have robots doing our ground assault by now?

I doubt robots would want any part of this mess either.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUqpZgHiEE[/youtube]

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Not saying I'm in favor of taking action, but there's a big difference in starting a full-on ground invasion and a resolution that specifically prohibits just that.

RT: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria."

Chris Coons (DE - Dem) is an azzhat.

Cluck U wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
RT: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria."

Chris Coons (DE - Dem) is an azzhat.

I blame the Tea Party for him being in there...

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria."

Chris Coons (DE - Dem) is an azzhat.

I blame the Tea Party for him being in there...

And I blame stupid Arizona retiree's for McCain being there...Jesus, what Arab country has he not wanted to invade in the past 6 years?!?!

I know you fellas don't like Colbert, but he has a point.

Ibanez wrote:

I know you fellas don't like Colbert, but he has a point.

Anyone with a pulse and even a sliver of a sense of humor likes Colbert.

I don't think 89hen likes Colbert.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

I know you fellas don't like Colbert, but he has a point.

Anyone with a pulse and even a sliver of a sense of humor likes Colbert.

I don't think 89hen likes Colbert.

He's an SC boy - what's not to like?

I can't stand Colbert.

I think it is time to sit one out. Let the French handle this one. They sat out Iraq. It's their turn. The rebels are no more our friends than Assad.

Nothing good will come of throwing missiles and bombs at Syria, unless Iran sealing off the straits of Hormuz, Islamist attacks on American targets through out the region and beyond, upping tensions with Russia, etc. is your idea of fun. Can you say $5 gas?

The chemical weapons will not go away, unless we put boots on the ground and take them. There will just be another group of unstable people using them on different people when they are backed in a corner. If we were serious about this we would have left troops in Iraq and gone in from there. That is where many of the chemical weapons were shipped by Saddam Huesein to start with.

The Brits have it right. Obama doesn't need to pull a LBJ on this one. I agree with Colbert, let's stay home and fix the murder problem in the inner cities, if we want to reduce senseless deaths.

andy7171 wrote:I can't stand Colbert.

That's great andy, nobody cares.