Breaking News: Big powers move in on Syria:

[Christians4LessGvt]

Big powers move in on Syria:
Russian troops for Tartus. US forces ready to go

DEBKAfile Special Report



June 15, 2012, 7:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

A contingent of Russian special forces is on its way to Syria to guard the Russian navy's deep-water port at the Syria's Mediterranean coastal town of Tartus, Pentagon officials informed US NBC TV Friday, June 15. They are coming by ship. According to debkafile's sources, the contingent is made up of naval marines and is due to land in Syria in the coming hours.

In a separate and earlier announcement, US Defense Department sources in Washington reported that the US military had completed its own planning for a variety of US operations against Syria, or for assisting neighboring countries in the event action was ordered, a reference, according to our sources, to Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

The Syrian civil war is now moving into a new phase of major power military intervention, say debkafile's military sources. Moscow, by sending troops to Syria without UN Security Council approval, has set up a precedent for the United States, the European Union and Arab governments to follow. They all held back from sending troops to Syria because all motions to apply force for halting the bloodshed in Syria was blocked in the UN body.

According to US military sources, in recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed and how many troops. The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said.

http://www.debka.com/article/22088/Big-powers-move-in-on-Syria-Russian-troops-for-Tartus-US-forces-ready-to-go

[Christians4LessGvt]

US military intervention in Syria "Not if but when"

DEBKAfile Special Report

June 16, 2012, 3:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

As the violence in Syria continued to go from bad to worse in scope and intensity,
US official sources had this to say Saturday, June 16,  about planned US military
operations in the war-torn country:
"The intervention will happen. It is not a question of "if" but "when".

A Syrian Free Army rebel delegation is now in Washington to talk about their requests for heavy weapons from the Obama administration. In their meetings with US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and the State Department's expert on Syria Fred Hof, the rebel leaders handed in two lists for approval: types of heavy weapons capable of challenging Bashar Assad's armed forces and selected targets of attack to destabilize his regime.

debkafile's Washington sources disclose that the administration is very near a decision on the types of weapons to be shipped to the Syrian rebels and when. Most of the items Washington is ready to send have been purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and are ready for shipment.

The White House is also close to deciding on the format of its military operation in Syria. Some sources are defining it as "Libya lite" that is, a reduced-scale version of the no-fly zone imposed on Libya two years ago and the direct air and other strikes which toppled the Qaddafi regime.

Following reports of approaching US military intervention in Syria and a Russian marine contingent heading for Tartus port, the UN observer mission in Syria has suspended operations and patrols. Its commander Maj. Gen. Robert Mood said, "Violence has been intensifying over the past 10 days by both parties with losses and significant risks to our observers."

http://www.debka.com/article/22088/US-military-intervention-in-Syria-?-?Not-if-but-when?

[Xavier_Onassis]

How would "Libya lite" work in Syria? Syria has a much larger and better-equipped and trained army than Libya.

I would not approve of US troops being placed in harm's way in Syria, unless the nature of the resistance forces was established and identified.

[Christians4LessGvt]

US Troops were not really put in "harms way" in Libya or Kosevo
don't go wetting your pants....it will be the same in Syria.

but i think we both agree
that unless we are sure something worse isn't going to emerge post Assad
that we need to be careful in getting involved at all
we had no pressing national interest in Libya and we dont in Syria

[Xavier_Onassis]

Libya is more important to the US than Syria.

Libya in a state of insurrection means that a portion of the oil will not flow, and that invites more speculation and higher oil prices. Syria produces nothing strategic that the US cannot get elsewhere. Other than humanitarian desires to prevent bloodshed, the only concern might be Israel. Syria in chaos is more of a positive thing for Israel. There are Syrians that might come to power that might give Israel a headache, but so far none has been identified.

[Christians4LessGvt]

US & Russia Deploy in Syria -- Double Prey for Al-Qaeda

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sounds like Israeli propaganda.

When in trouble,

When in doubt,

Run in circles,

Scream and shout:

"Panic! Panic! Panic!

[Christians4LessGvt]

I find myself again sort of cheering for another country's leader
that is trying to block want Obama wants to do.

I'm glad Putin is concerned what would replace Assad.

Obama is a dumbass that doesn't care who replaces Khadafi & Mubarak.....even if it's Al Queda!

[Christians4LessGvt]

.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I find myself again sort of cheering for another country's leader
that is trying to block want Obama wants to do.

============================================
What Obama wants is for Assad to step down peaceably and to be replaced by someone elected by the Syrian people.

Putin doe not want to lose Russia's base in Syria. Is that what you want as well?

Or would you like Assad to be replaced by Netanyahu?

[Henny]

I find myself again sort of cheering for another country's leader
that is trying to block want Obama wants to do.

I'm glad Putin is concerned what would replace Assad.

Obama is a dumbass that doesn't care who replaces Khadafi & Mubarak.....even if it's Al Queda!

Never mind that the Iranian government support Assad's government. As long as Obama is blocked?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Never mind that the Iranian government support Assad's government. As long as Obama is blocked?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong....1000 times wrong.
My view has ZERO to do with "blocking Obama".
I just think we need to be careful who we support ousting leaders when we have no idea who will replace them.
"Bad" can certainly be replaced by "horrible"
and history shows...especially in the Middle East....this happens many times.
Assad is certainly a bad guy, but he can be replaced by worse no matter what the Syrian people want.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obama is a dumbass that doesn't care who replaces Khadafi & Mubarak.....even if it's Al Queda!

======================================================================
Al Qaeda is not running for office anywhere.

Don't you understand that choosing the leader of Egypt, Libya or Syria is not up to the US President? I can't see any way that the US could select leaders of these countries even if they really tried.

It is one thing for him to CARE, but something entirely different for the President to select leaders of millions of Egyptians, Libyans or Syrians.

I don't think that President Obama is doing anything wrong in Syria.

In Egypt and Libya, he asked Mubarak and Qadaffy to step down, because of the obvious widespread disapproval of the people of those countries against them. In Libya, he gave air support to the rebels.

So far all he has done is to ask Assad to step down, again, because of widespread popular opposition and to avoid bloodshed, and some economic pressure. That is exactly what I consider the right thing to do at this point.

Your opinion is groundless, based on nothing at all other than hatred of Obama.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Don't you understand that choosing the leader of Egypt, Libya or Syria is not up to the US President?

Don't you understand that power players around the world like Russia, China, Iran,
Western Europe, the Saudis, and others all have influence on who comes to power in
many of these types of countries? If the US leaves it's influence on the sidelines and
allows people like Iran to spend hundreds of millions getting "their man" in power
in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, ect, ect ect...that is insanity for the United States.
You want to stand back and pretend naively "oh lets let the people decide"....
so we allow other countries...who many times are our enemies to have the influence
while we stand on the sidelines and we end up with whackjobs like we have in Iran
now exporting terror and furiously working on getting nukes to point at us.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I want my country to stand back and not risk the lives of its troops and risking looking like colonialists one more time.

It is not up to Americans to select governments for Syrians, Egyptians or anyone else, period. If we can prevent bloodshed through diplomacy or non-lethal means good. If not, we should NOT attempt to impose any government on any other country. It would not work, anyway. Observe that we are not pleased at all with Karzai in Afghanistan, and only slightly less displeased with Malaki of Iraq. After thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of locals have died.


The US is not in any position to "allow" anyone to take over Syria. Syria does not belong to the US or the Russians or anyone but the Syrians.